Evolution support in large-scale interoperable systems: a metadata driven approach.
Abstract
One of the fundamental difficulties associated with large-scale database interoperation is the cost and effort required for maintaining the federation in a consistent state after its launch. If only human intervention is to be assumed the task of maintaining logical federation consistency becomes insurmountable as the scale increases. The need for research towards a federation evolution model which takes into account evolving semantic aspects is becoming severe. We discuss desirable properties of such an evolution model and present a semi-automatic framework which is able to detect,report and reconcile the effects of change at both local and federal conceptual levels in interoperating database systems. The basis for the model is the exploitation of intensional sources data and a flexible way of ontologically committing local to federal conceptual entities.
References
[1]
J. Banerjee et al. Semantics and implementation of schema evolution in object oriented databases. ICSE 99 Los Angeles CA, USA, pages 321-322.]]
[2]
A. Bouguettaya et al. Implementation of interoperability in large multidatabases. In Proceedings of RIDE-IMS93, pages 55-60, 1993.]]
[3]
S. Chakravarthy. Just in time information: to push or not to push. In Proceedings of the 17th British National Conference on Databases (BNCOD17), Exeter,UK, pages 19-20, July 2000.]]
[4]
K. Claypool et al. Serf: Schema evolution through an extensible, re-usable and flexible framework. In proceedings of CIMK98,Bethesda,MD,USA, pages 314-321, 1998.]]
[5]
N. J. Fiddian, W. A. Gray, and D. I. Howells. Query language inter-translation in heterogeneous distributed database systems. Database Technology, 2(3/4):3-8, 1990.]]
[6]
T. R. Gruber. The role of common ontology in achieving sharable, reusable knowledge bases. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, San Mateo, CA, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.]]
[7]
R. Harrison. Summary:empirical studies of software development and evolution. In proceedings of ICSE99 Los Angeles, USA, pages 709-807, 1999.]]
[8]
D. Heimbigner and D. McLeod. A federated architecture for information management. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 3(3):253-278, July 1985.]]
[9]
D. I. Howells, N. J. Fiddian, and W. A. Gray. A comparision of old and new technologies for translating between relational query languages. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Statistical and Scientific Database Management, pages 179-183, Luxembourg, 1986.]]
[10]
D. I. Howells, N. J. Fiddian, and W. A. Gray. A source-to-source meta-translation system for relational query languages. In P. Stocker, W. Kent, and P. Hammerslay, editors, In proceedings of 13 th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 227-234, Brighton, 1987.]]
[11]
A. Jones, X. Xu, N. Pittas, W. Gray, N. Fiddian, R. White, J. Robinson, F. Bisby, and S. Brandt. Spice: A flexible architecture for integrating autonomous databases to comprise a distributed catalogue of life. Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA2000), Greenwich,UK, pages 981-992, 2000.]]
[12]
A. Karahasanovic. Semt- a tool for finding impacts of schema changes. In proceedings of Nordic Workshop on Programming Environment Research (NWPER 2000), Lillehamer, 2000.]]
[13]
D. D. Karunaratna, W. A. Gray, and N. J. Fiddian. Establishing a knowledge base to assist database integration. In 16th British National Conference on Databases, pages 103-118, Cardiff, U.K., July 1998.]]
[14]
V. Kashyap and A. Sheth. Semantic and schematic similarities between database objects: a context-based approach. VLDB Journal, 5:276-304, 1996.]]
[15]
W. Kim and J. Seo. Classifying schematic and data heterogeneity in multidatabase systems. IEEE Computer, pages 12-18, Dec. 1991.]]
[16]
L. Lakshamanan, S. Fadri, and I. Subrmanian. Schemasqla language for interoperability in relational multi-database systems. In proceedings of 22nd International Conference on Very Large Databases,Bombay, India, pages 239-250, 1996.]]
[17]
B. Lientz. Issues in software maintenance. Computing Surveys, 15:271-278, 1983.]]
[18]
R. Welland and M. Atkinson. A zoned architecture for large-scale evolution. In Proceedings of ISA W3 Orlando, Florida, USA, pages 314-321, 1997.]]
[19]
A. P. Sheth and J. P. Larson. Federated database systems for managing distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3):183-236, Sept. 1990.]]
[20]
M. Siegel and S. E. Madnick. A metadata approach to resolving semantic conflicts. In Proceedings of the 17 th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 1991.]]
[21]
D. Sjoberg. Quantifying schema evolution. Information and Software Technology, 35(2):35-44, July 1993.]]
[22]
G. Wiederhold. Precision in procesing data from heterogeneous resources. In Proceedings of the 17th British National Conference on Databases (BNCOD17), Exeter,UK, pages 1-18, July 2000.]]
Index Terms
- Evolution support in large-scale interoperable systems: a metadata driven approach.
Recommendations
Ontologies for semantically interoperable systems
CIKM '03: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Information and knowledge managementIn this paper, we discuss the use of ontologies for semantic interoperability and integration. We argue that information technology has evolved into a world of largely loosely coupled systems and as such, needs increasingly more explicit, machine-...
Ontology management for large-scale enterprise systems
Semantic markup languages such as RDF (Resource Description Framework) [Resource Description Framework (RDF), http://www.w3.org/RDF/] and OWL (Web Ontology Language) [Web Ontology Language (OWL), http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/] are increasingly being used ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Copyright © Copyright (c) 2001 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. All rights reserved.
Publisher
IEEE Computer Society
United States
Publication History
Published: 29 January 2001
Check for updates
Qualifiers
- Article
Conference
ADC '01
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 98 of 224 submissions, 44%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 335Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)1
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 21 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in