iMAP: discovering complex semantic matches between database schemas

By Robin Dhamankar, Yoonkyong Lee, AnHai Doan, Alon Y. Halevy, Pedro M. Domingos. ACM SIGMOD Conference, 2004

442 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Networks and Communications, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cbd3f59a60119144fe701979e5ddc6f89bdc906d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Large-scale Semantic Parsing via Schema Matching and Lexicon Extension (2013, methodology): “Schema matching in the database sense often considers complex matches between relations (Dhamanka et al., 2004), whereas as our techniques are currently restricted to matches involving one database relation and one relation extracted from text.”
Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative: Six Years of Experience (2011, background): “Even though the infrastructure for expressing complex correspondences is now available and several approaches for complex matching techniques have been proposed (see, for example, [15; 53]).”
A Survey of Schema-Based Matching Approaches (2005, unknown): “Thus, the second direction of the future work aims at extending our classification by taking into account instance-based approaches, e.g., [ 17 , 23, 40].”
Semantic Matching: Algorithms and Implementation (2007, background): “Many diverse solutions of match have been proposed so far, see [43,12,40,42] for recent surveys, while some examples of individual approaches addressing the matching problem can be found in [1,2,5,6,10,11,13,16,30,32,33,35,39]1.”
Corpus-based schema matching (2005, methodology): “For example, techniques proposed in [ 3 ] can be adapted to discover one-many mappings with arithmetic or string operations.”
Ontology Matching: State of the Art and Future Challenges (2013, background): “There are only a few matching systems able to provide an explanation for their results [128], [142], [143].”
Ontology Matching (2007, methodology): “9 Dependency graph as generated by iMAP (Dhamankar et al. 2004).”
Ten Challenges for Ontology Matching (2008, unknown): “Having understood the alignments returned by a matching system, users can deliberately edit them manually, thereby providing the feedback to the system, see [ 11 , 47, 75] for the solutions proposed so far and [25] for their in-depth analysis.”