Element Similarity Calculator in XML Schema Matching
Article No.: 8, Pages 1 - 10
Abstract
XML is one of the standard ways for representing and exchanging information on the Web. However, XML schemas that represent the same/similar information are usually heterogeneous. To reconcile the heterogeneity of XML schemas, there are many approaches in the literature that match the elements of XML schemas to each other. The calculation step that is in common among all the matching approaches is the similarity calculation among XML elements. We extract a pattern that abstracts the similarity metrics that have been applied by the existing XML matching approaches. The pattern provides to data/software engineers a skeleton of abstract classes that the engineers should extend for implementing the automated calculation of element similarity.
References
[1]
A. Algergawy, R. Nayak, and G. Saake. 2010. Element Similarity Measures in XML Schema Matching. Information Sciences 180, 24 (2010), 4975–4998.
[2]
A. Algergawy, E. Schallehn, and G. Saake. 2009. Improving XML Schema Matching Performance Using Prüfer Sequences. Data and Knowledge Engineering 68, 8 (2009), 728–747.
[3]
D. Athanasopoulos and A. V. Zarras. 2019. Mining Abstract XML Data-Types. ACM Transactions on the Web 13, 1 (2019), 2:1–2:37.
[4]
Carlo Batini, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Shamkant B. Navathe. 1986. A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration. ACM Computings Surveys 18, 4 (1986), 323–364.
[5]
G. Beliakov, A. Pradera, and T. Calvo. 2007. Aggregation Functions: A Guide for Practitioners. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Vol. 221. Springer. 1–304 pages.
[6]
Z. Bellahsene, A. Bonifati, and E. Rahm (Eds.). 2011. Schema Matching and Mapping. Springer.
[7]
I. F. Cruz, F. P. Antonelli, and C. Stroe. 2009. AgreementMaker: Efficient Matching for Large Real-World Schemas and Ontologies. VLDB Endowment 2, 2 (2009), 1586–1589.
[8]
H. H. Do and E. Rahm. 2002. COMA – A System for Flexible Combination of Schema Matching Approaches. In International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. 610–621.
[9]
H. H. Do and E. Rahm. 2007. Matching Large Schemas: Approaches and Evaluation. Information Systems 32, 6 (2007), 857–885.
[10]
A. Doan and A. Y. Halevy. 2005. Semantic Integration Research in the Database Community: A Brief Survey. AI Magazine 26, 1 (2005), 83–94.
[11]
F. Duchateau, Z. Bellahsene, M. Roantree, and M. Roche. 2007. Poster Session: An Indexing Structure for Automatic Schema Matching. In IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering Workshop. 485–491.
[12]
F. Duchateau, Z. Bellahsene, and M. Roche. 2007. BMatch: a Semantically Context-based Tool Enhanced by an Indexing Structure to Accelerate Schema Matching. In Journées Bases de Données Avancées.
[13]
F. Duchateau, Z. Bellahsene, and M. Roche. 2007. A Context-based Measure for Discovering Approximate Semantic Matching between Schema Elements. In International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science. 9–20.
[14]
T. Erl. 2016. Service-Oriented Architecture: Analysis and Design for Services and Microservices (second editioned.). Prentice Hall.
[15]
F. Giunchiglia, P. Shvaiko, and M. Yatskevich. 2004. S-Match: an Algorithm and an Implementation of Semantic Matching. In European Semantic Web Symposium. 61–75.
[16]
M. Hamdaqa and L. Tahvildari. 2014. Prison Break: A Generic Schema Matching Solution to the Cloud Vendor Lock-in Problem. In International Symposium on the Maintenance and Evolution of Service-Oriented and Cloud-Based Systems. 37–46.
[17]
J. Kim, Y. Peng, N. Ivezik, and J. Shin. 2011. An Optimization Approach for Semantic-based XML Schema Matching. International Journal of Trade, Economics, and Finance 2, 1(2011), 78–86.
[18]
M. Lee, L. H. Yang, W. Hsu, and X. Yang. 2002. XClust: Clustering XML Schemas for Effective Integration. In ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 292–299.
[19]
J. Madhavan, P. A. Bernstein, and E. Rahm. 2001. Generic Schema Matching with CUPID. In International Conference on Very Large Data Bases. 49–58.
[20]
M.M. Meijer. 2008. On A Method For XML Schema Matching. In Twente Student Conference on Information Technology.
[21]
P. De Meo, G. Quattrone, G. Terracina, and D. Ursino. 2006. Integration of XML Schemas at Various ”Severity” Levels. Information Systems 31, 6 (2006), 397–434.
[22]
R. Nayak and W. Iryadi. 2007. XML Schema Clustering with Semantic and Hierarchical Similarity Measures. Knowledge-Based Systems 20, 4 (2007), 336–349.
[23]
T. Pedersen, S. Patwardhan, and J. Michelizzi. 2004. WordNet: : Similarity – Measuring the Relatedness of Concepts. In National Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence. 1024–1025.
[24]
E. Rahm and P. A. Bernstein. 2001. A Survey of Approaches to Automatic Schema Matching. VLDB Journal 10, 4 (2001), 334–350.
[25]
K. Saleem, Z. Bellahsene, and E. Hunt. 2008. PORSCHE: Performance ORiented SCHEma mediation. Information Systems 33, 7–8 (2008), 637–657.
[26]
W3C. 2004. XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition. W3C, Technical Report. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2.
Recommendations
Element similarity measures in XML schema matching
Schema matching plays a central role in a myriad of XML-based applications. There has been a growing need for developing high-performance matching systems in order to identify and discover semantic correspondences across XML data. XML schema matching ...
A schema matching-based approach to XML schema clustering
iiWAS '08: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & ServicesThe relationship between XML data clustering and schema matching is bidirectional. On one side, clustering techniques have been adopted to improve matching performance, and on the other side schema matching is the backbone of the clustering technique. ...
XML-based XML schema access
WWW '07: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide WebXML Schema's abstract data model consists of components, which are the structures that eventually define a schema as a whole. XML Schema's XML syntax, on the other hand, is not a direct representation of the schema components, and it proves to be ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2022
338 pages
ISBN:9781450395946
DOI:10.1145/3551902
Copyright © 2022 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 07 February 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
EuroPLop '22
EuroPLop '22: 27th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs
July 6 - 10, 2022
Irsee, Germany
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 216 of 354 submissions, 61%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 126Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)76
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)13
Reflects downloads up to 01 Sep 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatGet Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in