4D-SETL - A Semantic Data Integration Framework

Sergio de Cesare, George Foy, Mark Lycett


Although successfully employed as the foundation for a number of large-scale government and energy industry projects, foundational ontologies have not been widely adopted within mainstream Enterprise Systems (ES) data integration practice. However, as the closed-worlds of ES are opened to Internet scale data sources, there is an emerging need to better understand the semantics of such data and how they can be integrated. Foundational ontologies can help establish this understanding and therefore, there is a need to investigate how such ontologies can be applied to underpin practical ES integration solutions. This paper describes research undertaken to assess the effectiveness of such an approach through the development and application of the 4D-Semantic Extract Transform Load (4D-SETL) framework. 4D-SETL was employed to integrate a number of large scale datasets and to persist the resultant ontology within a prototype warehouse based on a graph database. The advantages of the approach included the ability to combine foundational, domain and instance level ontological objects within a single coherent system. Furthermore, the approach provided a clear means of establishing and maintaining the identity of domain objects as their constituent spatiotemporal parts unfolded over time, enabling process and static data to be combined within a single model.


  1. Arsanjani, A. (2002) 'Developing and Integrating enterprise Components and Services', Communications of the ACM, 45(10), pp. 30-34.
  2. Bailey, I. (2011) 'Enterprise Ontologies-Better Models of Business', in Intelligence-based systems engineering. Springer, pp. 327-342.
  3. Bailey, I. and Partridge, C. (2009) 'Working with extensional ontology for defence applications', Ontology in Intelligence Conference.
  4. Bhatti, N., Bouch, A. and Kuchinsky, A. (2000) 'Integrating user-perceived quality into web server design', Computer Networks, 33(1), pp. 1-16.
  5. Bock, J., Haase, P., Ji, Q. and Volz, R. (2008) 'Benchmarking OWL reasoners', Proc. of the ARea2008 Workshop, Tenerife, Spain (June 2008).
  6. BORO Engineering Limited (2016) 'BORO Ontology'. Available from: < http://www.borosolutions.co.uk/so lutions/resources/boro-presentations-and papers >. [16 February 2016].
  7. Bricker, P. (2014) 'Ontological Commitment', in Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2014 edn.
  8. Campbell, A. and Shapiro, S. (1995) 'Ontological Mediation: An Overview', IJCAI Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing. 1995. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA,.
  9. Codd, E. (1970) 'A relational model of data for large shared data banks', Communications of the ACM, 13(6), pp. 377-387.
  10. Companies House (2016), Free Company Data Product. Available from: < http://download.companieshouse.g ov.uk/en_output.html >. [16 February 2016].
  11. Cregan, A. (2007) 'Symbol grounding for the semantic web', in The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. Springer, pp. 429-442.
  12. Doan, A., Noy, N.F. and Halevy, A.Y. (2004) 'Introduction to the special issue on semantic integration', ACM Sigmod Record, 33(4), pp. 11-13.
  13. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A. and Schneider, L. (2002) 'Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE', in Knowledge engineering and knowledge management: Ontologies and the semantic Web. Springer, pp. 166-181.
  14. Grenon, P. and Smith, B. (2004) 'SNAP and SPAN: Towards dynamic spatial ontology', Spatial cognition and computation, 4(1), pp. 69-104.
  15. Gruber, T.R. (1995) 'Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing?78, International journal of human-computer studies, 43(5), pp. 907- 928.
  16. Guizzardi, G., de Almeida Falbo, R. and Guizzardi, R. (2008) 'Grounding Software Domain Ontologies in the Unified Foundational Ontology (UFO): The case of the ODE Software Process Ontology.78, CIbSE. , 127- 140.
  17. Herre, H. (2010) 'General Formal Ontology (GFO): A foundational ontology for conceptual modelling', in Theory and applications of ontology: computer applications. Springer, pp. 297-345.
  18. Ireland, C., Bowers, D., Newton, M. and Waugh, K. (2009) 'A classification of object-relational impedance mismatch', Advances in Databases, Knowledge, and Data Applications, 2009. DBKDA'09. First International Conference on. IEEE, 36-43.
  19. Keet, M. (2011) 'The use of foundational ontologies in ontology development: an empirical assessment', in The Semantic Web: Research and Applications. Springer, pp. 321-335.
  20. Kent, W. (1978) Data and reality : basic assumptions in data processing reconsidered. Amsterdam ; Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Co.
  21. Lowe, E.J. (1998) 'Ontology.78, in Hondreich, T. (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 634.
  22. Lycett, M. (2013) ''Datafication': Making sense of (big) data in a complex world', .
  23. Partridge, C. (2002) 'The role of ontology in integrating semantically heterogeneous databases', Rapport technique, 5(02).
  24. Partridge, C., Mitchell, A. and de Cesare, S. (2013) 'Guidelines for developing Ontological Architecures in Modelling and Simulation', in Tolk, A. (ed.) Ontology, Epistemology, and Teleology for Modeling and Simulation. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 27-57.
  25. Office of National Statistics (2016), Postcode Data Product. Available from: < http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons /guide-method/geography/products/postcode-directorie s/-nspp-/index.html>. [16 February 2016].
  26. Office of National Statistics (2016), Standard Industrial Classification System 2007. Available from: < http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/classificatio ns/current-standard-classifications/standard-industrialclassification/index.html>. [16 February 2016].
  27. Partridge, C. (2005) Business objects. 2nd edn. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
  28. Quine, W.V. (1952) Methods of logic. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  29. Saltor, F., Castellanos, M. and Garcia-Solaco, M. (1991) 'Suitability of Data models As Canonical Models for Federated Databases', SIGMOD Rec., 20(4), pp. 44-48.
  30. Sheth, A.P. and Larson, J.A. (1990) 'Federated Database Systems for Managing Distributed, Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Databases', ACM Comput.Surv., 22(3), pp. 183-236.
  31. Sider, T. (2003) Four-dimensionalism: An ontology of persistence and time. Oxford.
  32. Strawson, P. F. "Identifying reference and truth values", Theoria, 30(2), 1964 pp. 96-118.
  33. Vicknair, C., Macias, M., Zhao, Z., Nan, X., Chen, Y. and Wilkins, D. (2010) 'A comparison of a graph database and a relational database: a data provenance perspective', Proceedings of the 48th annual Southeast regional conference. ACM, 42.
  34. Visser, P.R., Jones, D.M., Bench-Capon, T. and Shave, M. (1997) 'An analysis of ontology mismatches; heterogeneity versus interoperability', AAAI 1997 Spring Symposium on Ontological Engineering, Stanford CA., USA. , 164-172.
  35. Webber, J. (2012) 'A programmatic introduction to Neo4j', Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on Systems, programming, and applications: software for humanity. ACM, 217-218.
  36. Zikopoulos, P. and Eaton, C. (2011) Understanding big data: Analytics for enterprise class hadoop and streaming data. McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Cesare S., Foy G. and Lycett M. (2016). 4D-SETL - A Semantic Data Integration Framework . In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-758-187-8, pages 127-134. DOI: 10.5220/0005822501270134

in Bibtex Style

author={Sergio de Cesare and George Foy and Mark Lycett},
title={4D-SETL - A Semantic Data Integration Framework},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 1: ICEIS,
TI - 4D-SETL - A Semantic Data Integration Framework
SN - 978-989-758-187-8
AU - Cesare S.
AU - Foy G.
AU - Lycett M.
PY - 2016
SP - 127
EP - 134
DO - 10.5220/0005822501270134