article

Ontology and database mapping: a survey of current implementations and future directions

Online:01 March 2008Publication History

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the problem of mapping relational database contents and ontologies. The motivation lies in the fact that during the latest years, the evolution in Web Technologies rendered the addition of intelligence to the information residing on the Web a necessity. We argue that the addition of formal semantics to the databases that store the majority of information found in the Web is important, in order to make this information searchable, accessible and retrievable. The key technologies towards this direction are the Semantic Web and the ontologies. We analyze in this paper the approaches that have so far been presented in order to exploit the prospects that such collaboration promises. We set the theoretical and practical boundaries of the mapping problem, we delve into the tools that altogether comprise today's state of the art, and we provide a discussion about the benefits and the drawbacks of the existing approaches. We discuss the feasibility and viability of applying the mappings in real world applications as well as the directions that the evolution of current implementations should follow. We conclude by presenting the requirements that should be met in order to provide a more powerful next generation of mapping frameworks.

References

  1. M. K. Bergman (2001), The Deep Web: Surfacing Hidden Value, The Journal of Electronic Publishing Vol. 7, No. 1. Available online at http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/07- 01/bergman.html, accessed on 16-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler and O. Lassila (2001), Semantic Web - new form of Web content that is meaningful to computers will unleash revolution of new possibilities, Scientific American, pp.29-37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. T. R. Gruber (1995), Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 907-928. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. I. Kurtev, J. Bézivin and M. Aksit (2002), Technological spaces: An initial appraisal, in 10th International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 2002), International Symposium on Distributed Objects and Applications (DOA 2002), Federated Conferences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Kappel, E. Kapsammer, H. Kargl, G. Kramler, T. Reiter, W. Retschitzegger, W. Schwinger and M. Wimmer (2006), Lifting metamodels to ontologies: A step to the semantic integration of modeling languages, in Proceedings of Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems (MoDELS 2006), Vol. 4199 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 528-542. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. F. S. Parreiras, S. Staab and A. Winter (2007), On marrying ontological and metamodeling technical spaces, in Proceedings of the 6th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. R. Genesereth and N. J. Nilsson (1987), Logical Foundation of Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Borgida, M. Lenzerini and R. Rosati (2002), Description Logics for Databases, in the Description Logic Handbook, edited by F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, P. F. Patel-Schneider, Cambridge University Press, pp. 472-494.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. Beckett (2004), RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/, accessed on 20-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. O. Lassila and R. R. Swik (1999), RDF model and syntax specification, W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222, accessed on 18-11-07.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. I. Horrocks, P. Patel-Schneider and F. van Harmelen (2003), From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language, Journal of Web Semantics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 7-26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. McGuinness and F. van Harmelen (2004), OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/, accessed on 18-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. P. F. Patel-Schneider and I. Horrocks (2004), OWL Web Ontology Language: Semantics and Abstract Syntax Section 3. Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics. Available online at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html#3.1, accessed on 12-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. E. Sirin, B. Parsia, B. C. Grau, A. Kalyanpur and Y. Katz (2007), Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner, Journal of Web Semantics, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 51-53. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Tsarkov and I. Horrocks (2005), Ordering Heuristics for Description Logic Reasoning, in Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pp. 609-614, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. B. Motik and U. Sattler (2006), A comparison of reasoning techniques for querying large description logic Aboxes, in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Logic for Programming Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR 2006). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. V. Haarslev and R. Möller (2001), RACER System Description, in Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR 2001), Vol. 2083 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 701-706, Springer. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. S. Bechhofer (2006), DIG 2.0: The DIG Description Logic Interface, DIG Working Group Note, http://dig.cs.manchester.ac.uk/, accessed on 21-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. F. Baader and W. Nutt (2002), Basic Description Logics, in the Description Logic Handbook, edited by F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. L. McGuiness, D. Nardi, P. F. Patel-Schneider, Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Ramakrishnan, R. Gehrke (2003), Database Management Systems 3rd Edition, McGraw Hill, Chapter 3: The Relational Model, pp. 57-99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. E. F. Codd (1970), A relational model of data for large shared data banks, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 377-387. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Object Management Group (2002), MOF 2.0 Query/Views/Transformations RFP, http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ad/2002-4-10, accessed on 6-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. E. Prud'hommeaux and A. Seaborne (2005), SPARQL Query Language for RDF, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/, accessed on 18-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. J. Bailey, F. Bry, T. Furche and S. Schaffert (2005), Web and Semantic Web Query Languages: A Survey, in Reasoning Web, First International Summer School 2005, edited by N. Eisinger and J. Maluszynski, Vol. 3564 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. G. Karvounarakis, S. Alexaki, V. Christophides, D. Plexousakis and M. Scholl (2002), RQL: A declarative query language for RDF, in Proceedings of the 11th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2002). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. J. Broekstra, A. Kampman and F. van Harmelen (2003), Sesame: An architecture for storing and querying RDF data and schema information, in Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential, edited by D. Fensel, J. A. Hendler, H. Lieberman and W. Wahlster, MIT Press, pp. 197-222.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. C. P. de Laborda and S. Conrad (2006), Bringing relational data into the Semantic Web using SPARQL and Relational. OWL, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW 2006), pp. 55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. S. Harris and N. Gibbins (2003), 3store: Efficient Bulk RDF Storage, in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Practical and Scalable Semantic Systems (PSSS 2003), pp. 1-15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. O. Corby, R. Dieng-Kuntz and C. Faron-Zucker (2004), Querying the Semantic Web with the Corese search engine, in Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), Prestigious Applications of Intelligent Systems (PAIS 2004), pp. 705-709.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. D. Wood, P. Gearon and T. Adams (2005), Kowari: A Platform for Semantic Web Storage and Analysis, in Proceedings of the XTech Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. I. Horrocks, L. Li, D. Turi, and S. Bechhofer (2004), The Instance Store: Description Logic Reasoning with Large Numbers of Individuals, in 17th International Workshop on Description Logics (DL 2004), pp. 31-40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. D. Beneventano, S. Bergamaschi, F. Guerra, and M. Vincini (2005), Building a Tourism Information Provider with the MOMIS System, in Journal of Information Technology & Tourism, Vol. 7, No. 3-4, pp. 221-238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. S. Bergamaschi, S. Castano, M. Vincini, and D. Beneventano (2001), Semantic Integration of Heterogeneous Information Sources, in Journal of Data & Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 36, Elsevier Science B.V., pp. 215-249. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. L. Haas, M. Hernandez, H. Ho, L. Popa, and M. Roth (2005), Clio Grows Up: From Research Prototype to Industrial Tool, in ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 805-810. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. L. Yan, R. Miller, L. Haas, and R. Fagin (2001), Data-Driven Understanding and Refinement of Schema Mappings, in International Conference on the Management of Data, ACM SIGMOD Vol. 30, pp. 485-496. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. D. Maier, A. Mendelzon, and Y. Sagiv (1979), Testing Implications of Data Dependencies, in ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 455-469. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. L. Stojanovic, N. Stojanovic, and R. Volz (2002), Migrating Data-intensive Web sites into the Semantic Web, in ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC 2002), pp. 1100-1107. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. C. Bizer (2003), D2R MAP - A Database to RDF Mapping Language, in 12th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. J. Carroll, I. Dickinson, C. Dollin, D. Reynolds, A. Seaborne, and K. Wilkinson (2003), Jena: Implementing the Semantic Web recommendations, Technical Report (HPL- 2003-146), Hewlett-Packard.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP (2006), Jena - A Semantic Web Framework for Java, http://jena.sourceforge.net/, accessed on 18-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. C. Bizer and A. Seaborne (2004), D2RQ - Treating Non-RDF Databases as Virtual RDF Graphs, in the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. J. Barrasa, O. Corcho, and A. Gómez-Pérez (2003), Fund Finder Wrapper: A Case Study of Database-to-ontology Mapping, in International Workshop on Semantic Integration, pp. 9-15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. J. Barrasa, O. Corcho, and A. Gómez-Pérez (2004), R2O, an Extensible and Semantically Based Database-to-Ontology Mapping Language, in 2nd Workshop on Semantic Web and Databases.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. E. Bozsak et al. (2002), KAON - Towards a large scale Semantic Web. E-Commerce and Web Technologies, in 3rd International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies (EC-Web 2002), Vol. 2455 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 304-313. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. R. Volz, S. Handschuh, S. Staab, L. Stojanovic, and N. Stojanovic (2004), Unveiling the hidden bride: deep annotation for mapping and migrating legacy data to the Semantic Web, in Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 187-206.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. D. Dou, and P. LePendu (2006), Ontology-based Integration for Relational Databases, in the 21st ACM Symposium on Applied computing (SAC 06), pp. 461-466. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. D. Dou, J. Pan, H. Qin, and P. LePendu (2006), Towards Populating and Querying the Semantic Web, in 2nd Int Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems, pp.129-142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. R. Fikes, P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks (2005), OWL-QL - A language for deductive query answering on the Semantic Web, in Journal of Web Semantics, Vol 2, No. 1, pp. 19-29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Y. An, A. Borgida, and J. Mylopoulos (2006), Building Semantic Mappings from Databases to Ontologies, in the 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 06). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. N. Konstantinou, D. Spanos, M. Chalas, E. Solidakis, and N. Mitrou (2006), VisAVis: An Approach to an Intermediate Layer between Ontologies and Relational Database Contents, in International Workshop on Web Information Systems Modeling (WISM 06), pp. 36-47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Y. Kalfoglou, B. Hu, and D. Reynolds (2005), On Interoperability of Ontologies for Web-based Educational Systems, in Intl Workshop on Interoperability of Web-based Educational Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. R. Cyganiak, Benchmarking D2RQ v0.2, available online at http://sites.wiwiss.fuberlin.de/suhl/bizer/D2RQ/benchmarks/index.html, accessed on 18-11-2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. P. Bouquet, M. Ehrig, J. Euzenat, E. Franconi, P. Hitzler, M. Krötzsch, L. Serafini, G. Stamou, Y. Sure, and S. Tessaris (2004), Specification of a common framework for characterizing alignment, KnowledgeWeb deliverable d2.2.1v2. Technical report, Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. N. Choi, I. Y. Song and H. Han (2006), A Survey on Ontology Mapping, SIGMOD Record, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 34-41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Y. Kalfoglou and M. Schorlemmer (2003), Ontology mapping: the state of the art. The Knowledge Engineering Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 1-31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. I. Niles and A. Pease (2001), Towards a Standard Upper Ontology, in Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, edited by C. Welty and B. Smith. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. L. Ding, T. Finin, A. Joshi, R. Pan, R. S. Cost, Y. Peng, P. Reddivari, V. C. Doshi and J. Sachs (2004), Swoogle: A search and metadata engine for the Semantic Web, in Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 2004), pp. 652-659. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. I. Niles and A. Pease (2003), Linking Lexicons and Ontologies: Mapping WordNet to the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering (IKE 2003), Vol. 1, CSREA Press, pp. 412-416.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. T. Weithoner, T. Liebig, M. Luther, S. Bohm, F. von Henke and O. Noppens (2007), Real World Reasoning with OWL, in Proc. of 4th European Semantic Web Conference, Vol. 4519, Springer, pp. 296-310. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Y. Guo, Z. Pan and J. Heflin (2004), An Evaluation of Knowledge Base Systems for Large OWL Datasets, in Proc. of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), pp. 274-288.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. L. Ma, Y. Yang, Z. Qiu, G. Xie, Y. Pan and S. Liu (2006), Towards a Complete OWL Ontology Benchmark, in Proceedings of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2006), Vol. 4011 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, pp. 125-139. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. V. Uren, P. Cimiano, J. Iria, S. Handschuh, M. Vargas-Vera, E. Motta and F. Ciravegna (2006), Semantic Annotation for Knowledge Management: Requirements and a Survey of the State of the Art, Journal of Web Semantics Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 14-28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

(auto-classified)
  1. Ontology and database mapping: a survey of current implementations and future directions

          Comments

          Login options

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

          Sign in

          Full Access

          About Cookies On This Site

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

          Learn more

          Got it!