skip to main content
10.1145/1807085.1807116acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Foundations of schema mapping management

Published:06 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

In the last few years, a lot of attention has been paid to the specification and subsequent manipulation of schema mappings, a problem which is of fundamental importance in metadata management. There have been many achievements in this area, and semantics have been defined for operators on schema mappings such as composition and inverse. However, little research has been pursued towards providing formal tools to compare schema mappings, in terms of their ability to transfer data and avoid storing redundant information, which has hampered the development of foundations for more complex operators as many of them involve these notions.

In this paper, we address the problem of providing foundations for metadata management by developing an order to compare the amount of information transferred by schema mappings. From this order we derive several other criteria to compare mappings, we provide tools to deal with these criteria, and we show their usefulness in defining and studying schema mapping operators. More precisely, we show how the machinery developed can be used to study the extract and merge operators, that have been identified as fundamental for the development of a metadata management framework. We also use our machinery to provide simpler proofs for some fundamental results regarding the inverse operator, and we give an effective characterization for the decidability of the well-known schema evolution problem.

References

  1. M. Arenas, J. Pérez, J. Reutter, and C. Riveros. Composition and Inversion of Schema Mappings. SIGMOD Record, 38(3):17--28, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Arenas, J. Pérez, J. Reutter, and C. Riveros. Inverting schema mappings: bridging the gap between theory and practice. In VLDB, pages 1018--1029, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Arenas, J. Pérez, and C. Riveros. The recovery of a schema mapping: bringing exchanged data back. In TODS, 34(4), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. P. Bernstein, A. Halevy and R. Pottinger. A Vision of Management of Complex Models. SIGMOD Record, 29(4):55--63, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. Bernstein. Applying Model Management to Classical Meta Data Problems. In CIDR, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. P. Bernstein and S. Melnik. Model management 2.0: manipulating richer mappings. In SIGMOD, pages 1--12, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. P. Buneman, S. B. Davidson and A. Kosky. Theoretical aspects of schema merging. In EDBT, pages 152--167, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. O. Duschka and M. Genesereth. Answering recursive queries using views. In PODS, pages 109--116, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. B. ten Cate, P. Kolaitis. Structural Characterizations of Schema-Mapping Languages. In ICDT, pages 63--72, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. Fagin. Horn clauses and database dependencies. JACM, 29(4):952--985, 1982. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. R. Fagin. Inverting schema mappings. TODS, 32(4), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, R. J. Miller, and L. Popa. Data exchange: semantics and query answering. TCS, 336(1):89--124, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis and L. Popa. Data exchange: getting to the core. TODS,. 30(1):174--210, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, L. Popa, and W.-C. Tan. Composing schema mappings: second-order dependencies to the rescue. TODS, 30(4):994--1055, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, L. Popa, and W.--C. Tan. Quasi--inverses of schema mappings. In PODS, pages 123--132, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. R. Fagin, P. Kolaitis, L. Popa, and W.-C. Tan. Reverse data exchange: coping with nulls. In PODS, pages 23--32, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. R. Fagin, A. Nash. The structure of inverses in schema mappings. IBM Research Report RJ10425, version 4, April 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. A. Y. Halevy. Answering queries using views: A survey. VLDB J., 10(4):270--294, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. P. G. Kolaitis. Schema mappings, data exchange, and metadata management. In PODS, pages 61--75, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Y. Levy, A. O. Mendelzon, Y. Sagiv and D. Srivastava. Answering queries using views. In PODS, pages 95--104, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. S. Melnik, E. Rahm, and P. Bernstein. Rondo: A Programming Platform for Generic Model Management. In SIGMOD, pages 193--204, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. S. Melnik. Generic model management: concepts and algorithms. Volume 2967 of LNCS, Springer, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. Melnik, P. Bernstein, A. Y. Halevy, and E. Rahm. Supporting executable mappings in model management. In SIGMOD, pages 167--178, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Nash, P. Bernstein, S. Melnik. Composition of mappings given by embedded dependencies. In PODS pages 172--183, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. R. Pottinger and P. A. Bernstein. Merging models based on given correspondences. In VLDB, pages 826--873, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. Pottinger and P. A. Bernstein. Schema merging and mapping creation for relational sources. In EDBT, pages 73--84, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Pottinger and A. Y. Halevy. MiniCon: A scalable algorithm for answering queries using views. VLDB J., 10(2--3):182--198, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Foundations of schema mapping management

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        PODS '10: Proceedings of the twenty-ninth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
        June 2010
        350 pages
        ISBN:9781450300339
        DOI:10.1145/1807085

        Copyright © 2010 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 June 2010

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate476of1,835submissions,26%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!