ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Mapping data in peer-to-peer systems: semantics and algorithmic issues
Full text PdfPdf (213 KB)
Source International Conference on Management of Data archive
Proceedings of the 2003 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data table of contents
San Diego, California
SESSION: Data integration and sharing II table of contents
Pages: 325 - 336  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISBN:1-58113-634-X
Authors
Anastasios Kementsietsidis  University of Toronto
Marcelo Arenas  University of Toronto
Renée J. Miller  University of Toronto
Sponsor
SIGMOD: ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 18,   Downloads (12 Months): 95,   Citation Count: 41
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/872757.872798
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We consider the problem of mapping data in peer-to-peer data-sharing systems. Such systems often rely on the use of mapping tables listing pairs of corresponding values to search for data residing in different peers. In this paper, we address semantic and algorithmic issues related to the use of mapping tables. We begin by arguing why mapping tables are appropriate for data mapping in a peer-to-peer environment. We discuss alternative semantics for these tables and we present a language that allows the user to specify mapping tables under different semantics. Then, we show that by treating mapping tables as constraints (called mapping constraints) on the exchange of information between peers it is possible to reason about them. We motivate why reasoning capabilities are needed to manage mapping tables and show the importance of inferring new mapping tables from existing ones. We study the complexity of this problem and we propose an efficient algorithm for its solution. Finally, we present an implementation along with experimental results that show that mapping tables may be managed efficiently in practice.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
GDB. http://www.gdb.org/.
 
2
Gnutella. http://www.gnutelliums.com/.
 
3
Hugo. http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/hugo/.
 
4
Hyperion. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/db/hyperion/.
 
5
Locus. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/.
 
6
MIM. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim/.
 
7
Napster. http://www.napster.com/.
 
8
SWISS-PROT. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/swissprot/.
 
9
Unigene. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/UniGene/.
 
10
 
11
P. Bernstein, F. Giunchiglia, A. Kementsietsidis, J. Mylopoulos, L. Serafini, and I. Zaihrayeu. Data Management for Peer-to-Peer Computing: A Vision. In WebDB, 2002.
 
12
13
14
 
15
S. Davidson, G. C. Overton, and P. Buneman. Challenges in Integrating Biological Data Sources. Journal of Computational Biology, 2(4):557--572, 1995.
 
16
 
17
S. Gribble, A. Halevy, Z. Ives, M. Rodrig, and D. Suciu. What Can Databases Do for Peer-to-Peer? In WebDB, 2001.
 
18
A. Halevy, Z. Ives, D. Suciu, and I. Tatarinov. Schema Mediation in Peer Data Management Systems. To appear in ICDE 2003.
 
19
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
L. Popa, Y. Velegrakis, R. J. Miller, M. A. Hernandez, and R. Fagin. Translating Web Data. In VLDB, pages 598--609, Aug. 2002.
24
 
25
S. Sarawagi, editor. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin: Special Issue on Data Cleaning, volume 23, Dec. 2000.
26
 
27

CITED BY  41

Collaborative Colleagues:
Anastasios Kementsietsidis: colleagues
Marcelo Arenas: colleagues
Renée J. Miller: colleagues