A. Sheth, V. Kashyap: "So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically)", Proceedings of the IFIP DS-5 Conferences on Semantics of Interoperable Database Systems, Lorne, Australia, November 1992, Elsevier Publishers Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Use and Reuse of Databases - Eder, Frank (Correct)
....database management system. The component database system can continue its own local operation and at the same time participate in a federation. A component database system can be in more than one federation. Federated database systems can be characterized by three dimensions [SL90] KS91] and [SK92]: Distribution Data may be distributed among multiple databases. The databases can be stored on a single computer system or on a multiple computer system interconnected by a communication system. In the case of federated database systems the data distribution is due to the existence of the ....
A. Sheth, V. Kashyap: "So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically)", Proceedings of the IFIP DS-5 Conferences on Semantics of Interoperable Database Systems, Lorne, Australia, November 1992, Elsevier Publishers
Resolving Fragmentation Conflicts in Schema Integration - Dupont (1994) (8 citations) (Correct)
....between schemas The survey in [1] based on twelve methodologies for schema integration, identifies five different conflict types with corresponding resolution techniques. 16] classifies semantic incompatibilities along three dimensions (abstraction, naming and level of 4 heterogeneity) while [23] s taxonomy enumerates and classifies about thirty schematic conflicts. 25] proposed four orthogonal conflict types for the semantic aspect of schemas (What is stored) and put together all technical conflicts (How it is stored) such as domain, constraint or scale conflicts among others, under ....
....on the universe of discourse. Naming, structural and data model correspondences are then implicit, but one has to declare descriptive 1 A class in the ER model is an Entity type or a Relationship type. 5 correspondences. The real world semantics (RWS) of a class is usually defined ( 8] 13] [23], 26] as the set of the real world objects that the population of the class represents. The possible semantic correspondences between two classes are equivalence ( inclusion ( and ) disjunction ( and possible intersection ( Equivalence between two classes means that their extensions ....
Sheth A., Kashyap V., "So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically)", in Semantics of Interoperable Database Systems, Proc. of the Fifth Conf. on Database Semantic, IFIP DS-5, Lorne, Victoria Australia, Nov. 16-20 1992
Schema Interpretation: An Aid to the Schema Analysis in.. - Eaglestone, Masood (1 citation) (Correct)
....3. Related Research Schema analysis concerns establishing semantic similarities between schema element, as a basis for schema integration. Elements are considered semantically similar if they represent equivalent or related concepts [GSC96] A classification of semantic similarity is presented in [SK93], ranging from semantic equivalence to semantic resemblance, the strongest and the weakest types of semantic similarity. Semantic similarity between elements is relative, in that it depends on the context in which they are being compared. Attempts have been made to represent context of ....
Sheth, A., Kashyap, V., `So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically)', Proceedings, IFIP Wg 2.6 Conference on Semantics of Interoperable Database Systems (Data Semantics 5), North Holland, Amsterdam, (p283-312), 1993
Dynamic Aspects and Semantic Enrichment in Schema Comparison - Hakkarainen (1999) (Correct)
....additional, generic, information. A semantic enrichment technique can take many different forms, e.g. concept hierarchies [Yu et al. 91] shared ontologies [Spanoudakis Constantopoulos 94] linguistic knowledge [Johannesson 94] fuzzy terminologies [Fankhauser Neuhold 93] semantic proximity [Sheth Kashyap 93] domain abstractions [Maiden Sutcliffe 94] or extension analysis [Castellanos 94] Characteristic for a semantic enrichment method is that it provides additional semantics to the component schemas not covered by the used modelling language. Assuming the component schemas are described by the ....
A. Sheth, and V. Kashyap, `So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically)', Interoperable Database Systems (DS-5), Eds. D. K. Hsiao, E. J. Neuhold and R. Sacks-Davis, North-Holland, 1993
Using a cooperative agent system for a context-based discovery of .. - Klusch (1994) (Correct)
....database schemas by an integrity constraint [9] Any approach of declarative or functional specification of IDDs like in [28] 7] 9] presumes a priori knowledge about where to find semantically related data as well as its availability. The related problem of tackling semantic heterogeneity[26] is aggravated by the need to respect in particular the association autonomy[27] of all respective database systems. Recent criticism[5] 21] on federated database systems FDBS[27] state in particular their lack of support with respect to this object discovery problem[12] and thus the recognition ....
Sheth,A., Kashyap,V., 1992,"So far schematically yet so near semantically", Proc. IFIP TC2/WG2.6
Large Multidatabases: Beyond Federation And Global Schema.. - Bouguettaya (1994) (Correct)
No context found.
Amit Sheth and Vipul Kashyap, "So Far (Schematically) yet So Near (Semantically)," pp. Elsevier Publishers in IFIP DS-5 Semantics of Interoperable Database Systems (Editors: D. K. Hsiao, E. J. Neuhold, and R. Sacks-Davis), , Lorne, Victoria, Australia (1993).
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC