INTEROP deliverable DTG 6.2 : Method repository

This deliverable presents the INTEROP method chunks repository (MCR), its architecture and provided services. It includes the definition of a reusable method chunk, its structure, illustrated with examples of method chunks stored in the repository and guidelines for method chunks definition and characterisation covering tasks TG6.2 and TG6.3 of the work plan of the task group. The main result is the definition of the structure of the method chunk repository emphasizing the link to interoperability. Interoperability is a first-class concept in the structure of the method chunk repository. It not only characterizes method chunks, i.e. procedures to solve interoperability problems, but also interoperability cases, i.e. the presentation of actual problems involving interoperability issues. TG 6 has produced three MCR prototypes. Two experiments were undertaken using the Metis system and one using ConceptBase. The task group attended a two-day intense workshop on Metis. As a result, two experiments with Metis as platform for the method chunk repository are under way and reported in this deliverable. One is realizing the structure of the MCR as specified in this report. The other is an alternative approach that serves as a benchmark and is reported in the appendix. The ConceptBase prototype utilizes the metamodel presented in this deliverable. We have analysed three cases involving various aspects of interoperability. One case is about establishing a broker platform for insurance agents, the second about linking the information systems in the public utility sector, and the third case is establishing the relation of the ATHENA Model-Driven Interoperability Framework to the goals of the MCR. The results of the TG6 have been published at the ISD conference 2006 and the ER conference 2006. Copies of the papers are included in the appendix. The report of the example session with the method chunk repository has been shifted towards deliverable TG6.3 (Tutorial of the MCR). This is the more logical place. We want to emphasize that TG6 was not only busy in drafting concepts, exploring the state of the art, and analyzing cases. We are actually experimenting with a prototype and consider this a valuable contribution to the network. As soon as the prototype is stable, knowledge about interoperability solutions can be coded in this repository and can guide designers of interoperable systems by experience knowledge

Measure-Based Inconsistency-Tolerant Maintenance of Database Integrity

[EN] To maintain integrity, constraint violations should be prevented or repaired. However, it may not be feasible to avoid inconsistency, or to repair all violations at once. Based on an abstract concept of violation measures, updates and repairs can be checked for keeping inconsistency bounded, such that integrity violations are guaranteed to never get out of control. This measure-based approach goes beyond conventional methods that are not meant to be applied in the presence of inconsistency. It also generalizes recently introduced concepts of inconsistency-tolerant integrity maintenance.Partially supported by FEDER and the Spanish grants TIN2009-14460-C03 and TIN2010-17139Decker, H. (2013). Measure-Based Inconsistency-Tolerant Maintenance of Database Integrity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7693:149-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36008-4_7S1491737693Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley (1995)Abiteboul, S., Vianu, V.: A transaction-based approach to relational database specification. JACM 36(4), 758–789 (1989)Afrati, F., Kolaitis, P.: Repair checking in inconsistent databases: algorithms and complexity. In: 12th ICDT, pp. 31–41. ACM Press (2009)Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: PODS 1999, pp. 68–79. ACM Press (1999)Arieli, O., Denecker, M., Bruynooghe, M.: Distance semantics for database repair. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 50, 389–415 (2007)Arni-Bloch, N., Ralyté, J., Léonard, M.: Service–Driven Information Systems Evolution: Handling Integrity Constraints Consistency. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 191–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Bauer, H.: Maß- und Integrationstheorie, 2. Auflage. De Gruyter (1992)Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Quasi-Classical Logic: Non-Trivializable Classical Reasoning from Inconsistent Information. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, pp. 44–51. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Bohanon, P., Fan, W., Flaster, M., Rastogi, R.: A Cost-Based Model and Effective Heuristic for Repairing Constraints by Value Modification. In: Proc. SIGMOD 2005, pp. 143–154. ACM Press (2005)Ceri, S., Cochrane, R., Widom, J.: Practical Applications of Triggers and Constraints: Success and Lingering Issues. In: Proc. 26th VLDB, pp. 254–262. Morgan Kaufmann (2000)Chakravarthy, U., Grant, J., Minker, J.: Logic-based Approach to Semantic Query Optimization. Transactions on Database Systems 15(2), 162–207 (1990)Chomicki, J.: Consistent Query Answering: Five Easy Pieces. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Christiansen, H., Martinenghi, D.: On simplification of database integrity constraints. Fundamenta Informaticae 71(4), 371–417 (2006)Clark, K.: Negation as Failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press (1978)Curino, C., Moon, H., Deutsch, A., Zaniolo, C.: Update Rewriting and Integrity Constraint Maintenance in a Schema Evolution Support System: PRISM++. PVLDB 4, 117–128 (2010)Dawson, J.: The compactness of first-order logic: From Gödel to Lindström. History and Philosophy of Logic 14(1), 15–37 (1993)Decker, H.: The Range Form of Databases and Queries or: How to Avoid Floundering. In: Proc. 5th ÖGAI. Informatik-Fachberichte, vol. 208, pp. 114–123. Springer (1989)Decker, H.: Drawing Updates From Derivations. In: Kanellakis, P.C., Abiteboul, S. (eds.) ICDT 1990. LNCS, vol. 470, pp. 437–451. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Decker, H.: Extending Inconsistency-Tolerant Integrity Checking by Semantic Query Optimization. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5181, pp. 89–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Decker, H.: Answers That Have Integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6834, pp. 54–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Causes of the Violation of Integrity Constraints for Supporting the Quality of Databases. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Iglesias, A., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2011, Part V. LNCS, vol. 6786, pp. 283–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Inconsistency-tolerant Integrity Checking based on Inconsistency Metrics. In: König, A., Dengel, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kise, K., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6882, pp. 548–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Partial Repairs that Tolerate Inconsistency. In: Eder, J., Bielikova, M., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ADBIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6909, pp. 389–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Consistent Explanations of Answers to Queries in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. In: Roth-Berghofer, T., Tintarev, N., Leake, D. (eds.) Explanation-aware Computing, Proc. IJCAI 2011 Workshop ExaCt 2011, pp. 71–80 (2011), http://exact2011.workshop.hm/index.phpDecker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Classifying integrity checking methods with regard to inconsistency tolerance. In: Proc. PPDP 2008, pp. 195–204. ACM Press (2008)Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Modeling, Measuring and Monitoring the Quality of Information. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 212–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Inconsistency-tolerant Integrity Checking. IEEE TKDE 23(2), 218–234 (2011)Decker, H., Muñoz-Escoí, F.D.: Revisiting and Improving a Result on Integrity Preservation by Concurrent Transactions. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 297–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic Proof Procedures for Assumption-based Admissible Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114–159 (2006)Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Flum, J.: Finite Model Theory, 2nd edn. Springer (2006)Embury, S., Brandt, S., Robinson, J., Sutherland, I., Bisby, F., Gray, A., Jones, A., White, R.: Adapting integrity enforcement techniques for data reconciliation. Information Systems 26, 657–689 (2001)Enderton, H.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, 2nd edn. Academic Press (2001)Eiter, T., Fink, M., Greco, G., Lembo, D.: Repair localization for query answering from inconsistent databases. ACM TODS 33(2), article 10 (2008)Furfaro, F., Greco, S., Molinaro, C.: A three-valued semantics for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 51(2-4), 167–193 (2007)Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring the Good and the Bad in Inconsistent Information. In: Proc. 22nd IJCAI, pp. 2632–2637 (2011)Greco, G., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: A logical framework for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. IEEE TKDE 15(6), 1389–1408 (2003)Guessoum, A., Lloyd, J.: Updating knowledge bases. New Generation Computing 8(1), 71–89 (1990)Guessoum, A., Lloyd, J.: Updating knowledge bases II. New Generation Computing 10(1), 73–100 (1991)Gupta, A., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J., Widom, J.: Constraint checking with partial information. In: Proc. PODS 1994, pp. 45–55. ACM Press (1994)Hunter, A.: Measuring Inconsistency in Knowledge via Quasi-Classical Models. In: Proc. 18th AAAI &14th IAAI, pp. 68–73 (2002)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Approaches to Measuring Inconsistent Information. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 191–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Proc. 11th KR), pp. 358–366. AAAI Press (2008)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: Shapley Inconsistency Values. Artificial Intelligence 174, 1007–1026 (2010)Kakas, A., Mancarella, P.: Database updates through abduction. In: Proc. 16th VLDB, pp. 650–661. Morgan Kaufmann (1990)Kakas, A., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: The role of Abduction in Logic Programming. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 5, pp. 235–324. Oxford University Press (1998)Lee, S.Y., Ling, T.W.: Further improvements on integrity constraint checking for stratifiable deductive databases. In: Proc. VLDB 1996, pp. 495–505. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)Lehrer, K.: Relevant Deduction and Minimally Inconsistent Sets. Journal of Philosophy 3(2,3), 153–165 (1973)Mu, K., Liu, W., Jin, Z., Bell, D.: A Syntax-based Approach to Measuring the Degree of Inconsistency for Belief Bases. J. Approx. Reasoning 52(7), 978–999 (2011)Lloyd, J., Sonenberg, L., Topor, R.: Integrity constraint checking in stratified databases. J. Logic Programming 4(4), 331–343 (1987)Lozinskii, E.: Resolving contradictions: A plausible semantics for inconsistent systems. J. Automated Reasoning 12(1), 1–31 (1994)Ma, Y., Qi, G., Hitzler, P.: Computing inconsistency measure based on paraconsistent semantics. J. Logic Computation 21(6), 1257–1281 (2011)Martinenghi, D., Christiansen, H.: Transaction Management with Integrity Checking. In: Andersen, K.V., Debenham, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3588, pp. 606–615. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Martinenghi, D., Christiansen, H., Decker, H.: Integrity Checking and Maintenance in Relational and Deductive Databases and Beyond. In: Ma, Z. (ed.) Intelligent Databases: Technologies and Applications, pp. 238–285. IGI Global (2006)Martinez, M.V., Pugliese, A., Simari, G.I., Subrahmanian, V.S., Prade, H.: How Dirty Is Your Relational Database? An Axiomatic Approach. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 103–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Meyer, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.): Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley (1994)Nicolas, J.M.: Logic for improving integrity checking in relational data bases. Acta Informatica 18, 227–253 (1982)Plexousakis, D., Mylopoulos, J.: Accommodating Integrity Constraints During Database Design. In: Apers, P.M.G., Bouzeghoub, M., Gardarin, G. (eds.) EDBT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1057, pp. 495–513. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Rahm, E., Do, H.: Data Cleaning: Problems and Current Approaches. Data Engineering Bulletin 23(4), 3–13 (2000)Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.: A theorem-proving approach to database integrity. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 313–362. Morgan Kaufmann (1988)Thimm, M.: Measuring Inconsistency in Probabilistic Knowledge Bases. In: Proc. 25th UAI, pp. 530–537. AUAI Press (2009)Vardi, M.: On the integrity of databases with incomplete information. In: Proc. 5th PODS, pp. 252–266. ACM Press (1986)Wijsen, J.: Database repairing using updates. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 30(3), 722–768 (2005

A comparison of deontic matrices, maps and activity diagrams for the construction of situational methods

Several approaches have been proposed to support situational method engineering (SME), each of them providing different techniques and using different basic concepts. In this work, we propose a framework for comparing SME approaches based on a generic SME process model. Three approaches are presented and compared by using this framework

INTEROP deliverable DTG 6.1 : state of the art: Exploration of methods and method engineering approaches

The main objective of this deliverable is to provide material for the requirements analysis for a method chunk repository. The work has been carried out within INTEROP Task Group 6 starting at the Valencia work shop in May 2005 until the Bologna workshop in October 2005. The deliverable focuses on the state of the art analysis, the concepts and the collaboration platform on which we plan to build the rest of our work to develop, manage, apply and use method chunks and to analyse the impact on key interoperability issues. We strive to reuse available knowledge and results and associate our efforts to the ATHENA project. IT solutions provided by new technologies, give rise to development and sharing of reusable method chunks. By a method chunk we mean an autonomous and coherent part of a method supporting the realisation of some specific system development or management activity Method chunks and reference models can become visual models in digital form to support user interactive adaptation, extension, use, management and maintenance of other models, knowledge and data. By utilising new technology it is our aim to provide a flexible and useful method chunk repository. Method chunks can be used to package a variety of solutions as reusable, adaptable services and software components. In this context we find that a repository solution can be used to address a set of interoperability issues which have been identified to have relevance to both industry and research. We describe how a method chunk repository can be organised and populated to provide concrete support in dealing with interoperability in practice. We have identified a set of interoperability issues from the ontology, enterprise modelling and architecture & platform domains of INTEROP. In order to provide a better scoping of problems, these have been complemented by a set of interoperability issues concerning business management, process management, knowledge management, information management, software management and data management. The deliverable is a living document which reflects the work plan of Task Group 6. The parts which are completed so far concern the definition of method chunk, concepts and terms, a method chunk meta-model the initial analysis of method chunks, and interoperability issues to be considered in developing the method chunk repository. This content provides the foundation for the requirements on the method chunk repository

INTEROP deliverable DTG 6.2 : Method repository

This deliverable presents the INTEROP method chunks repository (MCR), its architecture and provided services. It includes the definition of a reusable method chunk, its structure, illustrated with examples of method chunks stored in the repository and guidelines for method chunks definition and characterisation covering tasks TG6.2 and TG6.3 of the work plan of the task group. The main result is the definition of the structure of the method chunk repository emphasizing the link to interoperability. Interoperability is a first-class concept in the structure of the method chunk repository. It not only characterizes method chunks, i.e. procedures to solve interoperability problems, but also interoperability cases, i.e. the presentation of actual problems involving interoperability issues. TG 6 has produced three MCR prototypes. Two experiments were undertaken using the Metis system and one using ConceptBase. The task group attended a two-day intense workshop on Metis. As a result, two experiments with Metis as platform for the method chunk repository are under way and reported in this deliverable. One is realizing the structure of the MCR as specified in this report. The other is an alternative approach that serves as a benchmark and is reported in the appendix. The ConceptBase prototype utilizes the metamodel presented in this deliverable. We have analysed three cases involving various aspects of interoperability. One case is about establishing a broker platform for insurance agents, the second about linking the information systems in the public utility sector, and the third case is establishing the relation of the ATHENA Model-Driven Interoperability Framework to the goals of the MCR. The results of the TG6 have been published at the ISD conference 2006 and the ER conference 2006. Copies of the papers are included in the appendix. The report of the example session with the method chunk repository has been shifted towards deliverable TG6.3 (Tutorial of the MCR). This is the more logical place. We want to emphasize that TG6 was not only busy in drafting concepts, exploring the state of the art, and analyzing cases. We are actually experimenting with a prototype and consider this a valuable contribution to the network. As soon as the prototype is stable, knowledge about interoperability solutions can be coded in this repository and can guide designers of interoperable systems by experience knowledge

An interoperability classification frameworks for method chunk repositories

The competitiveness and efficiency of an enterprise is dependent on its ability to interact with other enterprises and organisations. In this context interoperability is defined as the ability of business processes as well as enterprise software and applications to interact. Interoperability remains a problem and there are numerous issues to be resolved in different situations. We propose method engineering as an approach to organise interoperability knowledge in a method chunk repository. In order to organise the knowledge repository we need an interoperability classification framework associated to it. In this paper we propose a generic architecture for a method chunk repository, elaborate on a classification framework and associate it to some existing bodies of knowledge. We also show how the proposed framework can be applied in a working example

From Information Systems to Information Services Systems: Designing the Transformation

Part 3: Change Management and TransformationInternational audienceService-orientation is currently considered as a promising paradigm to deal with the complexity, interoperability and evolution of enterprise Information Systems (IS), which are the foremost preoccupation in today’s enterprises. However, the shift from a conventional IS architecture to a service-oriented one is not an easy task despite of the various service design approaches proposed in the literature. In this paper we promote the concepts of information service and Information Services System (ISS) and we present three different ways to design an ISS taking into account enterprise legacy IS and/or from scratch. We illustrate the three approaches with examples taken from industrial projects and case studies