skip to main content
10.1145/1142351.1142359acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Inverting schema mappings

Published:26 June 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

A schema mapping is a specification that describes how data structured under one schema (the source schema) is to be transformed into data structured under a different schema (the target schema). Although the notion of an inverse of a schema mapping is important, the exact definition of an inverse mapping is somewhat elusive. This is because a schema mapping may associate many target instances with each source instance, and many source instances with each target instance. Based on the notion that the composition of a mapping and its inverse is the identity, we give a formal definition for what it means for a schema mapping M′ to be an inverse of a schema mapping M for a class S of source instances. We call such an inverse an S-inverse. A particular case of interest arises when S is the class of all instances, in which case an S-inverse is a global inverse. We focus on the important and practical case of schema mappings defined by source-to-target tuple-generating dependencies, and uncover a rich theory. When S is defined by a set of dependencies with a finite chase, we show how to construct an S-inverse when one exists. In particular, we show how to construct a global inverse when one exists. Given M and M′, we show how to define the largest class S such that M′ is an S-inverse of M.

References

  1. C. Beeri and M. Y. Vardi. A Proof Procedure for Data Dependencies. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (JACM), 31(4):718--741, 1984. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. P. A. Bernstein. Applying Model Management to Classical Meta-Data Problems. In Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR), pages 209--220, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. R. Fagin. Generalized First-Order Spectra and Polynomial-Time Recognizable Sets. In R. M. Karp, editor, Complexity of Computation, SIAM-AMS Proceedings, Vol. 7, pages 43--73, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. R. Fagin. Multivalued dependencies and a new normal form for relational databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 2(3):262--278, Sept. 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, R. J. Miller, and L. Popa. Data Exchange: Semantics and Query Answering. Theoretical Computer Science, pages 89--124, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, and L. Popa. Data Exchange: Getting to the Core. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 30(1):174--210, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, L. Popa, and W.-C. Tan. Composing Schema Mappings: Second-Order Dependencies to the Rescue. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pages 83--94, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. P. Hell and J. Nešetril. The Core of a Graph. Discrete Mathematics, 109:117--126, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. R. Hull. Relative Information Capacity of Simple Relational Database Schemata. SIAM J. on Computing, 15:856--886, 1986. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. M. Lenzerini. Data Integration: A Theoretical Perspective. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pages 233--246, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. S. Melnik. Generic Model Management: Concepts and Algorithms. Springer, 2004. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Melnik, P. Bernstein, A. Halevy, and E. Rahm. Supporting Executable Mappings in Model Management. In ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pages 167--178, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. N. C. Shu, B. C. Housel, R. W. Taylor, S. P. Ghosh, and V. Y. Lum. EXPRESS: A Data EXtraction, Processing, amd REStructuring System. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 2(2):134--174, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. C. Yu and L. Popa. Semantic Adaptation of Schema Mappings when Schemas Evolve. In International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pages 1006--1017, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Inverting schema mappings

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              PODS '06: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
              June 2006
              382 pages
              ISBN:1595933182
              DOI:10.1145/1142351

              Copyright © 2006 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 26 June 2006

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • Article

              Acceptance Rates

              PODS '06 Paper Acceptance Rate35of185submissions,19%Overall Acceptance Rate642of2,707submissions,24%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader