Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation studies the problem of discovering and using semantics for structured and semi-structured data, such as relational databases and XML documents. Semantics is captured in terms of mappings from a database schema to conceptual schemas/ontologies. Data semantics lies at the heart of data integration—the problem of sharing data across disparate sources. To address this problem, database researchers have proposed a host of solutions including federated databases, data warehousing, mediator-wrapper-based data integration systems, peer-to-peer data management systems, and more recently data spaces. In the Semantic Web community, the solution to the problem of providing machine understandable data for better web-wide information retrieval and exchange is to annotate web data using formal domain ontologies. A central issue in all of these solutions is the problem of capturing the semantics of the data to be integrated. This dissertation describes our solutions for discovering semantics for data and using the semantics to facilitate the discovery of schema mappings. First, we develop a semi-automatic tool, MAPONTO, for discovering semantics for a database schema in terms of a given conceptual model (hereafter CM). The tool takes as inputs a relational or XML database schema, a CM covering the same domain as the database, and a set of simple element correspondences from schema elements to datatype properties in the CM. It then generates a set of logical formulas that define a mapping from the schema to the CM. The key is to align the integrity constraints in the schema with the semantic constructs in the CM, guided by standard database design principles. Second, we extend MAPONTO with a semantic approach to finding schema mapping expressions. The approach leverages the semantics of schemas expressed in terms of CMs. We present experimental results demonstrating that MAPONTO saves significant human effort in discovering the semantics of database schemas and it outperforms the traditional mapping techniques for building complex schema mapping expressions in terms of both recall and precision. The development of MAPONTO provides a suite of practical tools for recovering semantics for database-resident data and generating improved schema mapping results for data integration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".