<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Federated Semantic Data Management for Business Intelligence and Healthcare: Two Case Studies</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Juan F. Sequeda</string-name>
          <email>juan@capsenta.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Wayne Heideman</string-name>
          <email>wayne@capsenta.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Capsenta Inc.</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Austin, Texas</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>We present two case studies, in the area of Business Intelligence and Healthcare, where Federated Semantic Data Management solutions has been successfully used and deployed, to address the needs of generating financial business reports and identifying patients in need of a cardio medical device. In both case studies, the semantic approach decreased time and cost compared to traditional data integration approaches.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Business Intelligence</kwd>
        <kwd>Healthcare</kwd>
        <kwd>Ontology Based Data Access</kwd>
        <kwd>R2RML</kwd>
        <kwd>Ontology</kwd>
        <kwd>Mapping</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>1  </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Consider the following real-world examples. (1) Executives of a large e-commerce
company need to know how many orders were placed in a given month and the
corresponding net sales. Depending on whom they ask they get different answers. The IT
department managing the website records an order when a customer has checked out.
The fulfillment department records an order when it has shipped. Yet the accounting
department records an order when the funds charged against the credit card are actually
transferred to the company’s bank account, regardless of the shipping status. Unaware
of the source of the problem, the executives are vexed by inconsistencies across their
business reports. (2) Cardiologist and nurses at a hospital are trying to identify patients
in need of a Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVAD), a mechanical device that helps a
failing heart pump blood. However, the data needed to identify patients is located in
different systems. Additionally, the only time when doctors and nurses are able to
screen for patient matches is after their day shift. That is why on average only 10% of
patients who are in need of an LVAD are identified.</p>
      <p>
        In this presentation, we share our experiences of deploying Semantic Web
technologies to address these two use cases. The architecture we follow is that of Ontology
Based Data Access (ODBA): OWL ontologies [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ] (aka Enterprise Knowledge Graphs
for non semantic web users), serve as a uniform conceptual federated model describing
the domain of interest, independent of where and how the data is stored; R2RML
mappings [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] connect the source databases with the ontology. SPARQL queries [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ] in terms
of the ontology can be evaluated in a federated manner over the heterogeneous source
databases.
2  
      </p>
      <p>
        A challenge we face of deploying a Semantic Web architecture from scratch is the
engineering of the ontology and mappings. In this presentation we will discuss our
payas-you-go methodology that address this challenge and enables agility [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>Case Study 1: Business Intelligence</title>
      <p>For the first case study, we will present how a large e-commerce company, after
multiple failed Enterprise Data Warehouse efforts, was able to make sense of their
inscrutable order-management system and Oracle E-Business Suite by using federated semantic
data management technologies. Initially, the knowledge of what data was needed to
generate business reports was coming from a couple of business analyst and IT
developers. This approach did not scale. Executives did not always trust the data because the
process to generate the business intelligence reports was not well understood. Today,
this organization has reduced time and cost to generate new and trusted business
intelligence reports because a much larger group of business analysts are empowered by the
semantic data.
3  </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>Case Study 2: Healthcare</title>
      <p>In the second case study, we will present a patient stratification case study from the
Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Traditional Enterprise Data Warehouse
solutions did not satisfy the need due to cost. Additionally, moving data into a
centralized warehouse was not an option due to data privacy. By using federated semantic data
management technologies, the medical center was able to identify 30% more patients
in need of a life-saving Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVAD).
4  </p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>Attendees of this presentation will takeaway the following: understand the business
problems from these two use cases, the limits of traditional data integration approaches,
the benefits of a federated semantic data management solution and the challenges that
were addressed to successfully deploy the semantic solution.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>1.   OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.   R2RML:
          <article-title>RDB to RDF Mapping Language</article-title>
          . https://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <source>  SPARQL 1</source>
          .1 Query Language: https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.   Juan F. Sequeda, Daniel P. Miranker.
          <article-title>: A Pay-As-You-Go Methodology for Ontology-Based Data Access</article-title>
          .
          <source>IEEE Internet Computing</source>
          <volume>21</volume>
          (
          <issue>2</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>92</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>96</lpage>
          (
          <year>2017</year>
          )
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>