=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3324/om2022_poster2
|storemode=property
|title=Towards a unified metadata model for semantic and data mappings
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3324/om2022_poster2.pdf
|volume=Vol-3324
|authors=Sarah Alzahrani,Declan O'Sullivan
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/semweb/AlzahraniO22
}}
==Towards a unified metadata model for semantic and data mappings==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3324/om2022_poster2.pdf
Towards a Unified Metadata Model for Semantic and
Data Mappings
Sarah Alzahrani1,2 , Declan Osullivan3
1
School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
2
College of Computer and Information Sciences, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3
ADAPT Centre for Digital Content, School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin , Ireland
Abstract
Declarative data mappings are a valuable method for specifying how two datasets relate to one another.
Creating these mappings is not a simple process, since they are typically intended for a particular data
integration purpose and require expertise, resources, and time to accurately compose. However, there are
still many challenges facing researchers regarding finding, accessing, understanding, and reusing these
mappings, including the absence of detailed documentation and metadata related to their development
lifecycle. In this paper, we argue that a unified metadata model that captures every aspect of the mapping
development lifecycle is the most effective means of overcoming the current limitations
Keywords
Mappings, Alignments, Metadata Model, Knowledge Representation
1. Introduction
Within the linked data and semantic web domain mapping processes can be classified into three
categories, namely interlinking mapping, uplift/downlift mapping, and ontologies mapping
(sometimes called ontology alignment). The process of creating these mappings can be a complex
and time-consuming task [1]. Thus, the reuse of previously developed mappings is considered
necessary. It is our intuition that annotating mappings with a unified machine-processable
metadata model describing the development lifecycle may enhance the discovery, reuse, and
quality assessment of such mappings. This paper presents an overview of our proposed mapping
lifecycle and a description of our initial metadata model.
2. Proposed Mapping lifecycle
A mapping lifecycle breaks down the mapping process into stages. The proposed lifecycle in this
research has been designed such that it will be easy to follow by engineers who may not have a
knowledge engineering background but who may have a more general software engineering
background. The lifecycle is composed of six phases: Analysis, Mapping Design, Mapping
OM-2022: Proceedings of the 17th International Workshop on Ontology Matching, October 2022, Hangzhou, China
(Virtual)
Envelope-Open salzahra@tcd.ie (S. Alzahrani); declan.osullivan@tcd.ie (D. Osullivan)
Orcid 0000-0003-2169-7006 (S. Alzahrani); 0000-0003-1090-3548 (D. Osullivan)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
Table 1
Proposed metadata fields
Phases Proposed metadata fields
Analysis Metadata about stakeholders (URI, Name, Background, Role, organization), Meta-
data about the purpose of the mapping (Requirements, Type of mapping, Mapping
domain, Domain assumptions, technical requirement, Risks, or issues), and Meta-
data to describe inputs that will be mapped (URI, Name, Source, Type, Creator,
Format)
Design (Final design decisions,Design decision justification,Quality metrics to consider
during the development)
Development (URI, Name, Start/End date of the development, Tools, Mapping method, Mapping
algorithm, Format)
Testing (URI, Name, Testing type, Date/Time, Testing result)
Maintenance (Publisher name, Publisher source, Version number, Version date/time)
Development, Mapping Testing, and Map-ping Maintenance. We argue that the lifecycle phases
are appropriate irrespective of which of the three types of declarative mappings (ontology,
uplift/downlift, interlinking) is being handled, but naturally, some parts are more relevant/less
relevant depending on the type of mapping.
3. Initial Metadata Model
Several studies in the literature have introduced different metadata models and ways to enrich
mappings with metadata [2][3]. Generally, previous studies have developed metadata models for
specific types of mappings, and a few have considered comprehensive metadata fields reflecting
the stages of mapping development. In previous research such as [1] and [4], we have considered
the availability of comprehensive metadata fields reflecting the different stages of mapping
development for ontologies mappings. In this study, as an initial step toward supporting
mapping-related activities, we have developed a unified metadata model that captures the
lifecycle of mapping development. A summary of the metadata fields for each phase in the
proposed lifecycle is shown in the table below.
4. Future work
The next step in our research is seeking feedback from the community through a survey.
The feedback gathering is still ongoing, and 18 responses have been received to date. Your
participation is appreciated at https://rb.gy/kfpcrk. Next, we’ll examine how the metadata will
be represented and attached to mappings. Initially, we will investigate RDF* and Named graphs
as possible ways to represent our metadata model. Following on, an annotation tool will be
developed, and its usability and accuracy will be evaluated by engineers. Lastly, we believe this
work will contribute to building a collaborative mapping platform where semantic web and
linked data community members can share, update, and evaluate mappings.
5. Acknowledgments
The first author acknowledges financial support from Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic
University and the Saudi government represented by the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia Cultural
Bureau in Dublin. The second author is partially supported by the SFI ADAPT Research Centre
(grant number 13/RC/2106_P2).
References
[1] C. Debruyne, B. Walshe, and D. O’Sullivan, “Towards a Project Centric Metadata Model
and Lifecycle for Ontology Mapping Governance,” in Proceedings of the 17th International
Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications Services, New York, NY,
USA, 2015, vol. 1–10, p. Article 50. doi: 10.1145/2837185.2837201.
[2] A. Dimou, T. De Nies, R. Verborgh, E. Mannens, P. Mechant, and R. Van de Walle,“Automated
metadata generation for Linked Data generation and publishing workflows” in LDOW2016,
2016, pp.1–10.
[3] N. Matentzoglu et al., “A Simple Standard for Sharing Ontological Mappings (SSSOM),”
Data-base, vol. 2022, p. baac035, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1093/database/baac035.
[4] H. Thomas, R. Brennan, and D. O’Sullivan, “Using the OM2R Meta-Data Model for Ontology
Mapping Reuse for the Ontology Alignment Challenge: A Case Study,” in Proceedings of the 7th
Interna-tional Conference on Ontology Matching - Volume 946, Aachen, DEU, 2012, pp. 61–72.