Schema and ontology matching with COMA++

ABSTRACT

We demonstrate the schema and ontology matching tool COMA++. It extends our previous prototype COMA utilizing a composite approach to combine different match algorithms [3]. COMA++ implements significant improvements and offers a comprehensive infrastructure to solve large real-world match problems. It comes with a graphical interface enabling a variety of user interactions. Using a generic data representation, COMA++ uniformly supports schemas and ontologies, e.g. the powerful standard languages W3C XML Schema and OWL. COMA++ includes new approaches for ontology matching, in particular the utilization of shared taxonomies. Furthermore, different match strategies can be applied including various forms of reusing previously determined match results and a so-called fragment-based match approach which decomposes a large match problem into smaller problems. Finally, COMA++ cannot only be used to solve match problems but also to comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of different match algorithms and strategies.

REFERENCES

• 1: Bechhofer S., R. Volz, P. Lord: Cooking the Semantic Web with the OWL API. International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) 2003
• 2: Budanitsky A.: Lexical Semantic Relatedness and Its Application in Natural Language Processing. Tech. Report, Univ. Toronto, 1999
• 3: Do, H. H., E. Rahm: COMA - A System for Flexible Combination of Match Algorithms. VLDB 2002
• 4: Hong Hai Do , Sergey Melnik , Erhard Rahm, Comparison of Schema Matching Evaluations, Revised Papers from the NODe 2002 Web and Database-Related Workshops on Web, Web-Services, and Database Systems, p.221-237, October 07-10, 2002
• 5: AnHai Doan , Jayant Madhavan , Pedro Domingos , Alon Halevy, Learning to map between ontologies on the semantic web, Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web, May 07-11, 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA [doi>10.1145/511446.511532]
• 6: Yannis Kalfoglou , Marco Schorlemmer, Ontology mapping: the state of the art, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.18 n.1, p.1-31, January 2003 [doi>10.1017/S0269888903000651]
• 7: Jayant Madhavan , Philip A. Bernstein , AnHai Doan , Alon Halevy, Corpus-Based Schema Matching, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'05), p.57-68, April 05-08, 2005 [doi>10.1109/ICDE.2005.39]
• 8: Mena, E. et al: Managing Multiple Information Sources through Ontologies: Relationship between Vocabulary Heterogeneity and Loss of Information. Knowledge Representation Meets Databases (KRDB) 1996
• 9: Popa, L., M. Hernández, Y. Velegrakis, R. Miller: Mapping XML and Relational Schemas with Clio. ICDE 2002 (Demonstration)
• 10: Erhard Rahm , Hong-Hai Do , Sabine Maßmann, Matching large XML schemas, ACM SIGMOD Record, v.33 n.4, December 2004 [doi>10.1145/1041410.1041415]
• 11: Erhard Rahm , Philip A. Bernstein, A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching, The VLDB Journal — The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases, v.10 n.4, p.334-350, December 2001 [doi>10.1007/s007780100057]
• 12: Weeds, J., D. Weir, D. McCarthy: Characterising Measures of Lexical Distributional Similarity. Int. Conf. of Computational Linguistics (COLING) 2004