Re: StateOfTheArt

Dear All

I kind of got confused with all the emails, and I am sure that we will
clarify this tomorrow.

This is my two cents...

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Sebastian Hellmann <> wrote:

> Proposal for classification of literature:
> There seem to be 4 classes, which the literature can be divided in:
> 1. Schema/ontology Alignment:
> Hu et al., Dartgrid. Both try to create an alignment from an DB-schema to
> an existing ontology. Related Work in this direction is very numerous just
> to mention Coma++[1].

In our work, we have called this Database and Ontology Mapping. We should
clarify the definition of alignment and mapping. If I am not wrong, a
mapping has an alignment.

> 2. Database Mining
> Li, DB2OWL, RDBToOnto, Tirmizi all start from the existing database and try
> to extract as much information as possible from the database schema.
> They also stop there, which means they do not use any external sources such
> as existing domain ontologies.

We call this Direct Mapping, because we create the ontology directly just
from the database.  We have our survey on Direct Mapping and with this work
we can offer a complete explanation on this area.

> 3. Integration/Domain Semantics
> Sahoo et al. mainly concerned with modeling domain semantics correctly.
> 4. Languages/Servers
> D2RQ, R2O, RDF Views, Asio Tools, all have their own language and they all
> provide means to model domain semantics, but most often manually.
I would think that 3 and 4 are parts of 1. D2RQ and R2O are languages to
make the mappings


Juan Sequeda

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2008 23:50:12 UTC