Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A methodology for measuring structure similarity of fuzzy XML documents

  • Published:
Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Document matching has become a crucial task for data integration. A considerable amount of algorithms for comparing XML documents have been proposed in the literature. Yet, the existing approaches fall short in ability to identify structural similarities of fuzzy XML documents. To fill this gap, in this paper, we provide an integrated comparison approach to cope with structural similarities of the fuzzy XML documents. Firstly, we propose a new fuzzy XML document tree model to represent fuzzy XML document. Secondly, we offer element/attribute features similarity measure approach to identify matching nodes. Thirdly, we present an effective algorithm based on the tree edit distance to detect the structural similarities between fuzzy XML document trees represented with the proposed model. Finally, the experimental results demonstrate that our approach can efficiently perform structural similarity measure of the fuzzy XML documents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thomo A, Venkatesh S (2008) Rewriting of visibly pushdown languages for xml data integration. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on information and knowledge management. ACM, Napa Valley, pp 521–530

  2. Nierman A, Jagadish HV (2002) Evaluating structural similarity in XML documents. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD WebDB, vol 2. ACM, Madison, pp 61–66

  3. Dalamagas T, Cheng T, Winkel KJ et al (2006) A methodology for clustering XML documents by structure. Inf Syst 31(3):187–228. doi:10.1016/j.is.2004.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Guha S, Jagadish HV, Koudas N, Srivastava D, Yu T (2006) Integrating XML data sources using approximate joins. ACM Trans Database Syst 31(1):161–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Köpcke H, Rahm E (2010) Frameworks for entity matching: a comparison. Data Knowl Eng 69(2):197–210. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2009.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ribeiro L, H\(\ddot{a}\)rder T (2006) Entity identification in XML documents. In: 18th GI-workshop on the foundations of databases, pp 130–134

  7. Weis M, Naumann F, Brosy F (2006) A duplicate detection benchmark for XML (and relational) data. In: SIGMOD 2006 workshop on information quality for information systems. Chicago

  8. Oliboni B, Pozzani G (2008) Representing fuzzy information by using XML schema. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on database and expert systems application. Turin, pp 683-687. doi:10.1109/DEXA.2008.44

  9. Abiteboul S, Segoufin L, Vianu V (2006) Representing and querying XML with incomplete information. ACM Trans Database Syst 31(1):208–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nierman A, Jagadish HV (2002) ProTDB: probabilistic data in XML. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on vary large data bases. Hong Kong, VLDB Endowment, pp 646–657. doi:10.1016/B978-155860869-6/50063-9

  11. Negoita C, Zadeh L, Zimmermann H (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets Syst 1:3–28

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Gaurav A, Alhajj R (2006) Incorporating fuzziness in XML and mapping fuzzy relational data into fuzzy XML. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on applied computing. ACM, Dijon, pp 456–460. doi:10.1145/1141277.1141386

  13. Turowski K, Weng U (2002) Representing and processing fuzzy information-an XML-based approach. Knowl Based Syst 15(1):67–75. doi:10.1016/S0950-7051(01)00122-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tekli J, Chbeir R, Traina AJ, Traina C, Fileto R (2015) Approximate XML structure validation based on document- grammar tree similarity. Inf Sci 295:258–302

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Tekli J, Chbeir R (2012) A novel XML document structure comparison framework based-on sub-tree commonalities and label semantics. Web Semant 11:14–40. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2011.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Algergawy A, Nayak R, Saake G (2010) Element similarity measures in XML schema matching. Inf Sci 180(24):4975–4998. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.08.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wojnar A, Mlýnková I, Dokulil J (2010) Structural and semantic aspects of similarity of document type definitions and XML schemas. Inf Sci 180(10):1817–1836

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Sabbah T, Selamat A, Ashraf M, Herawan T (2014) Effect of thesaurus size on schema matching quality. Knowl Based Syst 71:211–226. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2014.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ma ZM, Yan L (2007) Fuzzy XML data modeling with the UML and relational data models. Data Knowl Eng 63(3):972–996. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2007.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nicol G, Wood L, Champion M et al (2001) Document object model (DOM) level 3 core specification. W3C Work Draft 13:1–146

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen W W, Ravikumar P, Fienberg S E (2003) A comparison of string distance metrics for name-matching tasks. In: Kdd workshop on data cleaning and object consolidation, vol 3. Washington, pp 73–78

  22. Lin D (1998) An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In: Proceedings of the international conference on machine learning. Madison, pp 296–304

  23. Levenshtein VI (1966) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions. Insertions Revers Sov Phys Doklady 6:707–710

    Google Scholar 

  24. Navarro G (2001) A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Comput Surv 33(1):31–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Marie A, Gal A (2008) Boosting schema matchers. In: Proceedings of the OTM 2008 confederated inter. Conferences. Springer, Monterrey, pp 283–300

  26. XML Data Repository. http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/xmldatasets/

  27. Sorrentino S, Bergamaschi S, Gawinecki M, Po L (2010) Schema label normalization for improving schema matching. Data Knowl Eng 69(12):1254–1273. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2010.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the \(National Natural Science Foundation of China \) (61370075 & 61572118) and the \(Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University \) (NCET- 05-0288).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang, 110819, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China

    Zhen Zhao

  2. School of Information Science and Technology, Bohai University, Jinzhou, 121013, Liaoning, People’s Republic of China

    Zhen Zhao

  3. College of Computer Science and Technology, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, 211106, Jiangsu, People’s Republic of China

    Zongmin Ma

Authors
  1. Zhen Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zongmin Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zongmin Ma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Z., Ma, Z. A methodology for measuring structure similarity of fuzzy XML documents. Computing 99, 493–506 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-017-0553-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00607-017-0553-x

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Search

Navigation