2014
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_45
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How to Best Find a Partner? An Evaluation of Editing Approaches to Construct R2RML Mappings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each of those directions inflicts a different interaction paradigm between the system and the user and thus solicits different forms of human input: users can edit mappings based on either the source or target definitions, they can drive the process by providing result examples or could theoretically even edit mappings irrespective of either the source or target in an abstract fashion. Some of us have also earlier identified two core user perspectives on mapping generation [41] also discussed by [20]. Moreover, while some approaches consider manual corrections only at the end of the mapping process, more thoroughly semi-automatic approaches allow or even require such input during the process.…”
Section: Differences In the Mapping Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each of those directions inflicts a different interaction paradigm between the system and the user and thus solicits different forms of human input: users can edit mappings based on either the source or target definitions, they can drive the process by providing result examples or could theoretically even edit mappings irrespective of either the source or target in an abstract fashion. Some of us have also earlier identified two core user perspectives on mapping generation [41] also discussed by [20]. Moreover, while some approaches consider manual corrections only at the end of the mapping process, more thoroughly semi-automatic approaches allow or even require such input during the process.…”
Section: Differences In the Mapping Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are also interfaces that allow the IT-expert to add new artefacts to the platform, and examine and edit those stored in the central repository, e.g., queries, ontologies and mappings. The platform relies on existing tools for ontology development like Protégé, 7 but features custom-built modules for mapping construction [32].…”
Section: Query Execution Query Execution Query Executionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The main limitation of R2RML languages is that in the research community and in the industry, there are certain problems with the adoption of R2RML. The manual creation of R2RML mappings is a time consuming process, the mappings are syntactically heavy in terms of the R2RML vocabulary (these processes imply to design valid SQL queries, to use the proper terms of the R2RML language, and to select the ontology concepts and properties), and for the experts using the language the steep learning curve is mainly caused by gaining expertise of the language [15].…”
Section: Preliminariesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An alternative from the ontology driven approach is the databasedriven approach which starts with selection of database elements followed by generation R2RML statements by selecting the proper target ontology elements. As stated in [15], none of these approaches (i.e. ontology-driven and database-driven) is better than the other; however users with a background in database can be more familiar with the ontologydriven approach.…”
Section: Ontology Mapping Interfacementioning
confidence: 99%