![](bg5.png)
set of
Relations is used to select a set of instances
of
Concepts. Indeed, an instance of Concept is
selected if it is a son or a father of an instance of the
Relation defined in the context. Thus, if the
instance of
Concept is selected then the semantic
value of the word is a multiset (e.g. bag) of
Attribute values and a second multiset of
AttributeSimple values according to the context.
Moreover, if the instance of
Concept is not linked to
an instance of
Relation, which is not an instance of
one of the
Relations defined in the context, then the
set of semantic values is empty.
These previous definitions allow us now to introduce
the notion of “Contextual Tree”. A Contextual Tree
is the result of a request to our information system
XML-IS. These requests are semantic filters that
give an adapted view of information. A request Rq is
defined in the following manner:
Ω = {x | x
∈
the set of Context }
C = {c | c
∈
the set of instance_Concept }
Rq = { x, y | x
∈
Ω’ and Ω’
∈
Ω and | Ω’| = 1,
y
∈
C’ and C’
⊂
C}
(2)
Concerning the definition of a context we add a rule
for the validation of the request. If the contextual
tree resulting from the request is not a hierarchical
non-cyclic graph then the context use is not well
defined. It means that the
Relation selected for the
definition of Context generates a Contextual Tree
which is not a tree. To resolve the issue of a bad
defined Context the user has to select fewer
Relations. For instance:
R’ = { “placement” }, A’ = { “shape” }, S’ = {
“id”}
C’ = { c is the set of
Instance_Concept
which is defined by the class
Concept
“wall”, “slab” and “pipe”}
Ω
Geo
= { r, a, s | r
∈
R’ and R’
⊂
R,
a
∈
A’ and A’
⊂
A,
s
∈
S’ and S’
⊂
S}
Rq = { x, y | x
∈
Ω
Geo
, y
C’ and C’
⊂
C}
(3)
The result of this request Rq is the selection of all
instances of Concept defined by the instances of
Concept called “wall”, “slab” and “pipe” which are
linked by the instance of
Relation defined by the
entity
Relation called “placement”. The semantic
value is the geometrical value of shape. The result is
an XML document that describes the shapes of walls
that belong to the building.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have presented our method to
integrate XML data and to retrieve XML
information through a defined context of use. The
objectives were reached with the introduction of the
semantic marks. The XML-IS system was tested on
a set of XML grammar schemas as well as on a set
of XML documents associated with each XML
schema.
REFERENCES
Aberer, K., Cudre-Mauroux, P., Hauswirth, M., 2002, A
framework for semantic gossiping. SIGMOD Record,
31(4)
Amann, B., 2003. Du Partage centralisé de ressources
Web centralisées à l’échange de documents
intensionnels, Documents de Synthèse.
Berstel, J., Boasson, L., 2000. XML Grammars, MFCS
2000: 182-191.
Cali, A., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., 2001, Models for
Information Integration: Turning Local-as-View into
Global-as-View, Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Foundations of Models for Information
Integration.
Carey, M. J., Kiernan, J., Shanmugasundaram, J., Shekita,
E. J., Subramanian, S. N., 2000. XPERANTO :
Middleware for Publishing Object-Relational Data as
XML Documents, The VLDB Journal, pp 646-648.
Cruz, I. F., Xiao, H., Hsu, F., 2004. An Ontology-based
Framework for Semantic Interoperability between
XML Sources, In Eighth International Database
Engineering & Applications Symposium (IDEAS
2004).
Guarino, N., 1994, The ontological level, in R. Casati B. S.
& White G., eds, Philosophy and the cognitive
sciences, Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Klein, M., 2002. Interpreting XML via an RDF schema. In
ECAI workshop on Semantic Authoring, Annotation
& Knowledge Markup (SAAKM 2002), Lyon, France.
Lakshmannan, L. V., Sadri, F., 2003. Interoperability on
XML Data, In Proceeding of the 2nd International
Semantic Web Conference (ICSW’03).
Martin, D., Paolucci, M., Wagner, M., 2007, Towards
Semantic Annotations of Web Services: OWL-S from
the SAWSDL Perspective, In OWL-S Experiences and
Future Developments Workshop at ESWC 2007, June
2007, Innsbruck, Austria.
Pan, A., Raposo, J., Álvarez, M., Montoto, P., Orjales, V.,
Hidalgo, J., Ardao, L., Molano, A., Viña, Á., 2002,
The Denodo Data Integration Platform, VLDB, Hong
Kong, China.
Recanati. F., 1993, Direct Reference: From Language to
Thought. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
XML-IS: ONTOLOGY-BASED INTEGRATION ARCHITECTURE
277