基于描述逻辑的数据仓库系统元数据一致性问题的研究
|
摘要
数据仓库系统的成功操作和使用密切地依赖于多种元数据的有效管理。元数据的质量管理是元数据管理的一个重要方面。高质量的数据只有在高质量的元数据的描述下才能充分发挥作用。在元数据的质量管理中,元数据的一致性管理又是其中的重要方面。元数据内容的不一致能够严重影响数据仓库系统处理数据的正确性和精确性,从而对数据仓库系统的稳定性和可靠性造成极大影响。目前国际上对于元数据一致性问题的相关研究还处于起步阶段,还没有研究团体针对通用元数据管理标准,对元数据的一致性问题进行系统的研究。本论文的研究内容就是系统地研究基于普遍接受的通用元数据交换标准——CWM标准——的数据仓库系统元数据的一致性问题。本论文的研究成果可用于开发数据仓库系统元数据一致性的增强系统。该系统支持元数据冲突的自动发现和半自动消解,从而为数据仓库系统各组件的开发和集成提供支持,进而提高数据仓库系统的稳定性和可靠性。
冲突管理是包括不同活动的复杂过程,该过程在软件工程领域被深入研究。在CWM元数据的环境中,由于几个原因冲突管理是非常复杂的,其中最明显的原因是CWM元数据和元模型缺乏形式化的语义。我们认为,CWM元数据的冲突管理必须依赖于一个能够精确定义、发现和消解冲突的强有力的形式化机制。我们提出了一组关键准则,每个准则中的需求可以用于评价支持CWM元数据冲突的发现和消解的形式化机制。
描述逻辑作为一阶谓词逻辑的子集,定义了一系列逻辑语言,并提供了基于子概念-超概念关系的分类任务。描述逻辑非常适合于关于层次和知识库可满足性的推理。目前已有几种描述逻辑系统被开发出来。我们发现描述逻辑和描述逻辑系统很适合于CWM元数据冲突的发现和消解。我们通过三步来验证描述逻辑是否满足关键准则中的需求。首先研究描述逻辑是否能够描述CWM元数据的抽象语法和语义。其次研究如何利用该形式化机制发现冲突。最后研究是否可能使用描述逻辑消解冲突。
本论文的创新性研究成果主要有:(1)提出了一系列评价准则用于评价一个可以用作CWM元数据冲突管理工具的理论基础的静态冲突发现和消解机制,并讨论了所选择的形式化机制满足评价准则中的需求的程度;(2)选择了描述逻辑作为基于CWM交换标准的数据仓库系统元数据的形式化机制,并提出了描述CWM元模型和元数据的描述逻辑;(3)将元数据的一致性区分为水平一致性和演化一致性,并提出了形式化两种一致性情形下的数据仓库系统元数据和元模型的方法;(4)提出了利用描述逻辑的查询推理能力检测元数据中的冲突的方法;(5)提出了一种基于描述逻辑冲突消解规则的元数据冲突消解方法。
The effective management of metadata is indispensable to successfully operate and use the data warehouse system. The quality management of metadata is an important part of metadata management. Only in the description of high quality metadata can high quality data work sufficiently. The consistency management of metadata is an important part of the quality management of metadata. The inconsistencies of metadata content can greatly influence the validity and accuracy of the data warehouse system processing data, thus greatly influence the stability and reliability of the data warehouse system. The research related to metadata consistency is still in its infancy, there is no systematic research about metadata consistency taking into account common metadata management specifications. This dissertation researches systematically the problems of metadata consistency in the data warehouse system based on common metadata exchange standard-Common Warehouse Metamodel(CWM). Our research can be favorably exploited for developing intelligent system that enforces metadata consistency in the data warehouse system. This system supports the automatic detection and semi-automatic resolution of metadata inconsistencies, so as to provide support for the development and integration of the components of data warehouse systems, thus improve the stability and reliability of data warehouse system.
Inconsistency management is a complex process consisting of different activities. It is a well-studied process within software engineering. Inconsistency management in the CWM metadata context is quite complicated due to several reasons. The most obvious reason is the missing formal semantics for the CWM metadata and metamodel. In our opinion, the inconsistency management of the CWM metadata must rely on a powerful formalism enabling the precise definition, detection and resolution of inconsistencies. We distil a set of key criteria. The requirements for each of these criteria can be used to evaluate a formalism supporting the detection and resolution of CWM metadata inconsistencies.
Description Logic(DL) is a two-variable fragment of first-order predicate logic, defining a family of logic languages, offering a classification task based on the subconcept-superconcept relationship. DLs are very suited for reasoning about hierarchies and about the satisfiability of knowledge bases. Different DL systems are developed. We discover that DLs and DL systems are suited for the detection and resolution of CWM metadata inconsistencies. DLs are validated against our key criteria in three successive steps. First, we investigate if it is possible to describe the abstract syntax and semantic of the CWM metadata. Second, we show how inconsistencies can be detected using this formalism. Finally, we investigate if it is possible to resolve inconsistencies using DLs and DL systems.
The contributions of this dissertation are: (1) distilling a set of criteria used to evaluate a static inconsistency detection and resolution formalism that serves as the basis for inconsistency management tool for the CWM metadata, and validating our formalism against these key criteria. (2) choosing DLs as the formalism for data warehouse system metadata based on CWM metadata exchange standard, and presenting a DL for the description of the CWM metadata and metamodel. (3) distinguishing metadata consistency into horizontal consistency and evolution consistency, and presenting the approach for formalizing the CWM metadata and metamodel in these two consistency context. (4) presenting the approach for detecting metadata inconsistencies using the query and reasoning ability provided by DLs. (5) presenting the approach for resolving metadata inconsistencies using inconsistency resolution rules in DLs.
冲突管理是包括不同活动的复杂过程,该过程在软件工程领域被深入研究。在CWM元数据的环境中,由于几个原因冲突管理是非常复杂的,其中最明显的原因是CWM元数据和元模型缺乏形式化的语义。我们认为,CWM元数据的冲突管理必须依赖于一个能够精确定义、发现和消解冲突的强有力的形式化机制。我们提出了一组关键准则,每个准则中的需求可以用于评价支持CWM元数据冲突的发现和消解的形式化机制。
描述逻辑作为一阶谓词逻辑的子集,定义了一系列逻辑语言,并提供了基于子概念-超概念关系的分类任务。描述逻辑非常适合于关于层次和知识库可满足性的推理。目前已有几种描述逻辑系统被开发出来。我们发现描述逻辑和描述逻辑系统很适合于CWM元数据冲突的发现和消解。我们通过三步来验证描述逻辑是否满足关键准则中的需求。首先研究描述逻辑是否能够描述CWM元数据的抽象语法和语义。其次研究如何利用该形式化机制发现冲突。最后研究是否可能使用描述逻辑消解冲突。
本论文的创新性研究成果主要有:(1)提出了一系列评价准则用于评价一个可以用作CWM元数据冲突管理工具的理论基础的静态冲突发现和消解机制,并讨论了所选择的形式化机制满足评价准则中的需求的程度;(2)选择了描述逻辑作为基于CWM交换标准的数据仓库系统元数据的形式化机制,并提出了描述CWM元模型和元数据的描述逻辑;(3)将元数据的一致性区分为水平一致性和演化一致性,并提出了形式化两种一致性情形下的数据仓库系统元数据和元模型的方法;(4)提出了利用描述逻辑的查询推理能力检测元数据中的冲突的方法;(5)提出了一种基于描述逻辑冲突消解规则的元数据冲突消解方法。
The effective management of metadata is indispensable to successfully operate and use the data warehouse system. The quality management of metadata is an important part of metadata management. Only in the description of high quality metadata can high quality data work sufficiently. The consistency management of metadata is an important part of the quality management of metadata. The inconsistencies of metadata content can greatly influence the validity and accuracy of the data warehouse system processing data, thus greatly influence the stability and reliability of the data warehouse system. The research related to metadata consistency is still in its infancy, there is no systematic research about metadata consistency taking into account common metadata management specifications. This dissertation researches systematically the problems of metadata consistency in the data warehouse system based on common metadata exchange standard-Common Warehouse Metamodel(CWM). Our research can be favorably exploited for developing intelligent system that enforces metadata consistency in the data warehouse system. This system supports the automatic detection and semi-automatic resolution of metadata inconsistencies, so as to provide support for the development and integration of the components of data warehouse systems, thus improve the stability and reliability of data warehouse system.
Inconsistency management is a complex process consisting of different activities. It is a well-studied process within software engineering. Inconsistency management in the CWM metadata context is quite complicated due to several reasons. The most obvious reason is the missing formal semantics for the CWM metadata and metamodel. In our opinion, the inconsistency management of the CWM metadata must rely on a powerful formalism enabling the precise definition, detection and resolution of inconsistencies. We distil a set of key criteria. The requirements for each of these criteria can be used to evaluate a formalism supporting the detection and resolution of CWM metadata inconsistencies.
Description Logic(DL) is a two-variable fragment of first-order predicate logic, defining a family of logic languages, offering a classification task based on the subconcept-superconcept relationship. DLs are very suited for reasoning about hierarchies and about the satisfiability of knowledge bases. Different DL systems are developed. We discover that DLs and DL systems are suited for the detection and resolution of CWM metadata inconsistencies. DLs are validated against our key criteria in three successive steps. First, we investigate if it is possible to describe the abstract syntax and semantic of the CWM metadata. Second, we show how inconsistencies can be detected using this formalism. Finally, we investigate if it is possible to resolve inconsistencies using DLs and DL systems.
The contributions of this dissertation are: (1) distilling a set of criteria used to evaluate a static inconsistency detection and resolution formalism that serves as the basis for inconsistency management tool for the CWM metadata, and validating our formalism against these key criteria. (2) choosing DLs as the formalism for data warehouse system metadata based on CWM metadata exchange standard, and presenting a DL for the description of the CWM metadata and metamodel. (3) distinguishing metadata consistency into horizontal consistency and evolution consistency, and presenting the approach for formalizing the CWM metadata and metamodel in these two consistency context. (4) presenting the approach for detecting metadata inconsistencies using the query and reasoning ability provided by DLs. (5) presenting the approach for resolving metadata inconsistencies using inconsistency resolution rules in DLs.
引文
[1] Meta Data Europe 99: Implementing, Managing and Integration Meta Data, London UK, March 1999. Technology Transfer Institute. http://www.ttiuk.co.uk/.
[2] Devlin B. Data Warehouse– From Architecture to Implementation. Addison-Wesley Longman, 1997.
[3] Murry D, Anahory S. Data Warehousing in the Real World– A Practical Guide for Building Decision Support Systems. Addison Wesley Longman, 1997.
[4] Marieke G, Powell A, Day M. Improving the Quality of Metadata in Eprint Archives, Areiadne, Issue 38, 2004
[5] Robertson, R.J. Metadata Quality: Implications for Library and Information Science Professionals”, Library Review, Vol. 54, No.5, 2005:295-300.
[6] Moen, W.E., Stewart, E.L. and McClure. Assessing metadata quality: findings and methodological considerations from an evaluation of the U.S. Government Information Locater Service(GILS). In IEEE international Forum on Research and Technology Advances in Digital Libraries, ADL’98 Proceedings, Santa Barbara, California, 1998.
[7] Bruce, T.R., Hillmann, D.I. The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting. In Metadata in Practice, American Library Association, 2004:238-256.
[8] Bernstein P., U. Dayal. An overview of repository technology. Proceedings of the 24th VLDB Conference Santiage Chile, 1998.
[9] Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility Specification Version 1.4.
[10] Object Management Group. Common Warehouse Metamodel(CWM) Specification Version 1.1. November 2001.
[11] John Poole, Dan Chang, Douglas Tolbert, David Mellor. Common Warehouse Metamodel Developer’s Guide. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc, January 2003.
[12] M.H. Brackett. The Data Warehouse Challenge. Wiley, 1996.
[13] CDIF CASE Data Interchange Format– Overview EIA CDIF document EIA/IS 106.
[14] CDIF– Integrated Meta-Model EIA CDIF documents EIA/IS-111 EIA/is-112, EIA/IS-114, EIA/IS-115.
[15] The Meta Data Coalition. Meta Data Interchange Specification(MDIS Version 1.1), 1997. http://www.MDCinfo.com/MDIS/MDIS11.html.
[16] ISO/IEC 10027: 1990 Information Technology– Information Resource Dictionary System Framework 1990-06-15.
[17] Wakeman, L., J. Jowett. PCTE– The Standard for Open Repositories. Prentice-Hall. May 1993.
[18] ISO/IEC 10728, Information Technology– Information Resource Dictionary System(IRDS) Services Interface, April 1993.
[19] ISO/IEC 13238-3, Information Technology– Data Management– Part 3: IRDS export/import facility, Dec 1998.
[20] Purpose of an IRDS. http://www.irds.org/purpose.html.
[21] European Computer Manufacturer’s Association(ECMA). Portable Common Tool Environment(PCTE)– Abstract Specification, fourth edition, 1997.
[22] OMG. XMI– XMI Metadata Interchange Specification. Version 2.0. OMG Document formal/03-05-02, May 2003.
[23] Cooperative Research Centre for Distributed Systems Technology(DSTC). dMOF Version 1.1. User guide. 2000.
[24] Matula, M. NetBeans Metadata Repository(White Paper). March 2003.
[25] Unisys Corporation. JMI-RI Documentation. CIM Guide. Version 1.3. October 2002.
[26] Adaptive Ltd. Adaptive Enterprise Repository(White Paper). May 2002.
[27] Unisys Universal Repository Manager, http://www.unisys.com/marketplace/urep/.
[28] Anthony Finkelstein, George Spanoudakis, and David Till. Managing interference. In Joint proceedings of second international software architecture workshop(ISAW-2) and international workshop on multiple perspectives in software development (Viewpoints’96) on SIGSOFT’96 workshops, pages 172–174. ACM Press, 1996. New York, NY, USA.
[29] Bashar Nuseibeh, Steve Easterbrook, and Alessandra Russo. Leveraging inconsistency in software development. IEEE Computer, 33(4):24–29, 2000.
[30] George Spanoudakis and Andrea Zisman. Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues. In Chang S. K., editor, Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, volume 1, pages 329–380. World Scientific Publishing Co., 2001.
[31] Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini. Identification constraints and functional dependencies in description logics. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on ArtificialIntelligence(IJCAI 2001), 2001.
[32] Anthony Finkelstein. A foolish consistency: Technical challenges in consistency management. In I. Ibrahim, J. K¨ung, and N. Revell, editors, Proceedings International Conference Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA2000), volume 1873 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–5. Springer, September 2000. London, UK.
[33] John C. Grundy, John G. Hosking, and Warwick B. Mugridge. Inconsistency management for multiple-view software development environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(11):960–981, 1998.
[34] Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[35] Carlos Areces. Logic Engineering. PhD thesis, Institute for Logic Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, 2000. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[36] Ulrike Sattler. Description Logics for ontologies. In Aldo de Moor, Wilfried Lex, and Bernhard Ganter, editors, Proceedings of eleventh International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS2003), volume 2746 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, July 21-25 2003. Dresden, Germany.
[37] Franz Baader, Ian Horrocks, and Ulrike Sattler. Description Logics as ontology languages for the semantic web. In Dieter Hutter and Werner Stephan, editors, Festschrift in honor of J¨org Siekmann, volume 2605 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2005.
[38] Anthony Finkelstein, Dov M. Gabbay, Anthony Hunter, Jeff Kramer, and Bashar Nuseibeh. Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In Ian Sommerville and Manfred Paul, editors, Proceedings of fourth European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC1993), volume 717 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 84–99. Springer, September 1993. Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
[39] Bashar Nuseibeh, Jef Kramer, and Anthony Finkelstein. A framework for expressing the relationship between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(10):760–773, 1994.
[40] Hans Nissen, Manfred Jeusfeld, Matthias Jarke, Georg Zemanek, and Harald Guber. Managing multiple requirements perspectives with metamodels. IEEE Software, 13(2):37–47, March 1996.
[41] Wolfgang Emmerich, Anthony Finkelstein, Stefano Antonelli, Stephen Armitage, and Richard Stevens. Managing standards compliance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(6):836–851, 1999.
[42] Bernhard Nebel. Terminological cycles: Semantics and computational properties. In J. F. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, pages 331–361. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, USA, 1991. chapter 11.
[43] Ronald Brachman and Hector Levesque. The tractability of nsubsumption in frame-based description languages. In Ronald Brachman, editor, Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 34–37. AAAI Press, August 1984
[44] Manfred Schmidt-Schauss and Gert Smolka. Attributive concept descriptions with omplements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.
[45] Volker Haarslev, Carsten Lutz, and Ralf M¨oller. A Description Logic with concrete domains and role-forming predicates. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3):351–384, 1999.
[46] Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. A Description Logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3):385–410, 1999.
[47] Volker Haarslev and Ralf M¨oller. Expressive abox reasoning with number restrictions, role hierarchies, and transitively closed roles. In A.G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, editors, Proceedings of seventh International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000), pages 273–284. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, April 2000. Breckenridge, COL, USA.
[48] Klaus Schild. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI1991), pages 466–471. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, August 1991. Sydney, Australia.
[49] Ulrike Sattler. A concept language extended with different kinds of transitive roles. In G. G¨orz and S. H¨olldobler, editors, 20. Deutsche Jahrestagung f¨ur K¨unstliche Intelligenz, number 1137 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 1996.
[50] Michael J. Fischer and Richard E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. Journal of Computer and System Science, 18(2):194–211, 1979.
[51] Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler, and Stephan Tobies. Practical reasoning for expressive Description Logics. In Harald Ganzinger, David McAllester, and Andrei Voronkov, editors,Proceedings sixth International Conference on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR’99), number 1705 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 161–180. Springer, September 1999.
[52] Stephan Tobies. Complexity Results and Practical algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH-Aachen, 2001. Aachen, Germany.
[53] Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Daniele Nardi. Reasoning in expressive Description Logics. In John Alan Robinson and Andrei Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning (in 2 volumes), pages 1581– 1634. Elsevier Science Publishers and MIT Press, 2001.
[54] M. Buchheit, F.M. Donini, A. Schaerf, Decidable reasoning in terminological knowledge representation systems, J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 1 (1993) 109–138.
[55] Franz Baader and Philipp Hanschke. A scheme for integrating concrete domains into concept languages. DFKI Research Report RR-91-10, Deutsches Forschungszentrum f¨ur K¨unstliche Intelligenz, 1991. Kaiserslautern, Germany.
[56] Carsten Lutz. NExpTime-complete Description Logics with concrete domains. In Rajeev Gor′e, Alexander Leitsch, and Tobias Nipkow, editors, Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR2001), number 2083 in Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence, pages 45–60. Springer, 2001. Siena, Italy.
[57] Ronald J. Brachman. What’s in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9(2):127–152, 1977.
[58] Alex Borgida and David W. Etherington. Hierarchical knowledge bases and efficient disjunctive reasoning. In Ronald J. Brachman, Hector J. Levesque, and Raymond Reiter, editors, Proceedings of first International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR1989), pages 33–43. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, May 1989. Toronto, Canada.
[59] Robert MacGregor. Inside the LOOM description classifier. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):88–92, 1991.
[60] Ian Horrocks. FaCT and iFaCT. In Patrick Lambrix, Alexander Borgida, Maurizio Lenzerini, Ralf M¨oller, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors, Proceedings of 1999 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL1999), volume 22 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 133–135, July 1999. Link¨oping, Sweden.
[61] Volker Haarslev and Ralf M¨oller. RACER system description. In Rajeev Gor′e, AlexanderLeitsch, and Tobias Nipkow, editors, Proceedings Automated Reasoning, First International Joint Conference, (IJCAR2001), volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 701–706. Springer, June 2001. Siena, Italy.
[62] Lori Alperin Resnick, Alex Borgida, Ronald J. Brachman, Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Kevin C. Zalondek. CLASSIC Description and Reference Manual for the Common Lisp implementation. AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NY, USA, December 1995. Version 2.3.
[63] David Brill. Loom Reference Manual. University of Southern California, version 2.0 edition, December 1993.
[64] University of Southern California. Loom Knowledge Representation System 4.0. http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/, December 2004.
[65] University of Southern California. PowerLoom Knowledge Representation System 4.0. http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/PowerLoom/index.html, December 2004.
[66] Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks, Carole Goble, and Robert Stevens. OilEd: a Reason-able Ontology Editor for the Semantic Web. In Franz Baader, Gerhard Brewka, and Thomas Eiter, editors, Proceedings of Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Joint German/Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2174 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 396–408. Springer, September 2001. Vienna.
[67] Volker Haarslev and Ralf M¨oller. RACER User’s Guide and Reference Manual, version 1.7 edition, March 2003.
[68] Volker Haarslev, Ralf M¨oller, and Michael Wessel. RACER User’s Guide and Reference Manual, version 1.7.19 edition, April 2004.
[69] S. Chaudhuri and U. Dayal. An overview of data warehousing and OLAP technology. SIGMOD Record, 26(1), March 1997.
[70] V. K. Chaudhri, A. Farquhar, R. Fikes, P. D. Karp, and J. P. Rice. OKBC: A programmatic foundation for knowledge base interoperability. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98, Madison, WI, July 1998, 1998.
[71] M. J. Corey, M. Abbey, I. Abramson, and B. Taub. Oracle8 Data Warehousing: A Practical Guide to Successful Data Warehouses Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 1997.
[72] W. H. Inmon. Building the Data Warehouse. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.
[73]梅婧,林作铨.从ALC到SHOQ(D):描述逻辑及其Tableau算法.计算机科学, 2005,32(3): 1~11.
[74]董明楷,蒋运承,史忠植.一种带缺省推理的描述逻辑.计算机学报, 2003, 26(6): 729~736.
[75] M. Jarke and Y. Vassiliou. Data warehouse quality design: A review of the DWQ project. In Proc. 2th Conference on Information Quality, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1997.
[76] D. O’Leary. Using AI in knowledge management: Knowledge bases and ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(3):34-39, May/June 1998.
[77] T. Stohr, R. Muller, and E. Rahm. An integrative and uniform model for metadata management in data warehousing environments. In Proceedings of the Intl. Workshop on Design and Management of Data Warehouses(DMDW 99), pages 12.1-12.16, Heidelberg, Germany, June 1999.
[78] C. White. Managing distributed data warehouse meta data. http://www.dmreview.com/issues/1999/feb/articles/feb99_46.htm.
[79] J. Draskic, J-M. Le Goff, I. Willers, F. Estrella, Z. Kovacs, R. McClatchey, M. Zse-ni,“Using a meta-model as the basis for enterprise-wide data navigation”, Proc. of the Third IEEE Meta-Data Conference (META-DATA'99), Bethesda, Maryland, 1999.
[80] D. Marco, Building and managing the meta data repository - a full lifecycle guide, Wiley, New York, 2000.
[81] G. Tozer, Metadata management for information control and business success, Artech House, Boston, 1999.
[82] Dushay, N. and D. Hillmann. 2003. Analyzing metadata for effective use and re-use. Dublin Core Conference: Supporting Communities of Discourse and Practice-Metadata Research & Applications.
[83] J. B′ezivin. On the unification power of models. Software and System Modeling, 4(2):171–188, 2005.
[84] J. B′ezivin, F. Jouault, P. Rosenthal, and P. Valduriez. Modeling in the Large and Modeling in the Small. In Model Driven Architecture, LNCS 3599, pages 33–46, 2005.
[85] E. Breton and J. B′ezivin. Weaving Definition and Execution Aspects of Process Meta-models. In 35th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, page 290, 2002.
[86] P. Loucopoulos and V. Kavakli. Enterprise Knowledge Management and ConceptualModelling. In Conceptual Modeling(ER’97), pages 123–143. Springer, 1997.
[87] J.-N.Mazon, J. Trujillo,M. Serrano, andM. Piattini. Applying MDA to the development of data warehouses. In Proceedings DOLAP’05, pages 57–66, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
[88] Object Management Group. UML 2.0 Object Constraint Language (OCL) Specification. 2005.
[89] J. Trujillo, M. Palomar, J. G′omez, and I.-Y. Song. Designing Data Warehouses with OO Conceptual Models. IEEE Computer, 34(12):66–75, 2001.
[90] C. Pons, R. Giandini, and G. Baum,“Dependency relations between models in the Unified Process”, Proceeding of IEEE International Workshop on Software Specification and Design IWSSD, San Diego, California, USA, November 2000. IEEE Computer Society Press.
[91] Mellor S.J. and Balcer M.J.: Executable UML: a foundation for model-driven architecture. Addison-Wesley, 2002.
[92] Reggio G., et al.: Towards a rigorous semantics of UML supporting its multiview approach. In H. Hussmann, editor, Proc. FASE 2001, LNCS 2029. Springer, 2001.
[93] Clark A., Evans A., and Kent S.: The Meta-Modeling Language Calculus: Foundation Semantics for UML. In Proceedings of ETAPS FASE Conference. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
[94] Wirsing M., Knapp A.: View Consistency in Software Development, In Martin Wirsing, Alexander Knapp, and Simonetta Balsamo, editors, Proc. 9th Int. Wsh. Monterey. Radical Innovations of Software and Systems Engineering in the Future (RISSEF’02). Revised Papers, volume 2941 of Lect. Notes Comp. Sci., pages 341–357. Springer, Berlin, 2004.
[95] B. Hnatkowska, Z. Huzar, J. Magott, Consistency Checking in UML models, 4th Int. Conf. on Information Systems, Modeling ISM'01, 2001.
[96] [15] J.L. Sourrouille, G . Caplat, "Constraint Checking in UML Modeling", SEKE'02, ACM-SIGSOFT, pp217-224
[97] P. Bottoni, M. Koch, F. Parisi-Pressice, and G. Taenzer. Consistency checking and visualization of OCL constraints. In UML 2000, LNCS 1936. Springer Verlag, 2000.
[98] C. Ghezzi and B. Nuseibeh. Special issue on managing inconsistency in software development (1). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(11):906–1001, November 1998.
[99] C. Ghezzi and B. Nuseibeh. Special issue on managing inconsistency in softwaredevelopment (2). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(11):782–869, November 1999.
[100] Tolbert, D., "CWM: A Model-Based Architecture for Data Warehouse Interchange", Workshop on Evaluating Software Architectural Solutions 2000, University of California at Irvine, May, 2000.
[101] David Harel and Bernhard Rumpe. Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff. Technical Report MCS00-16, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 2000.
[102] Warmer J, Kleppe A., The Object Constraint Language Getting your models ready for MDA, Addison Wesley, 2003.
[103] David Garlan, Shan-Wen Chen, and Andrew J. Kompanek. Reconciling the Needs of Architectural Description with Object-Modeling Notations. Science of Computer Programming Journal, Special issue on UML, 44(1):23–49, July 2002.
[104] Joaquin Miller and Jishnu Mukerji. Model driven architecture (MDA). Draft ormsc/2001-07-01, Architecture Board ORMSC, July 2001.
[105] Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language specification version 1.5.formal/2003-03-01, March 2003.
[106] P. Vassiliadis, A. Simitsis und S. Skiadopoulos: Conceptual Modeling for ETL Processes. In: Dimitri Theodoratos (Ed.): Proceedings of ACM Fifth International Workshop on Data Warehousing and OLAP (DOLAP 2002), November 8, 2002, McLean, VA.
[107] B. Husemann, J. Lechtenborger, G. Vossen. Conceptual data warehouse modeling. In Proc. 2nd Intl. Workshop on Design and Management of Data Warehouses (DMDW), pp. 6.1–6.11, Stockholm, Sweden (2000).
[108] M. Jarke, M. Lenzerini, Y. Vassiliou, P. Vassiliadis (Eds.), Fundamentals of Data Warehouses, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
[109] G. Engels, J.H. Hausmann, R. Heckel, and St. Sauer. Testing the consistency of dynamic UML diagrams. In Proc. Sixth International Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2002), June 2002. Pasadena, CA, USA.
[110] F.M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, A. Schaerf, Reasoning in description logics, in: G. Brewka (Ed.), Principles of Knowledge Representation, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, CSLI Publications, 1996, pp. 193–238.
[111] I. Horrocks, P.F. Patel-Schneider, Optimizing description logic subsumption, J. LogicComput. 9 (3) (1999) 267–293.
[112] M. Jarke, R. Gallersdorfer, M. Jeusfeld, M. Staudt, and S. Eherer. Conceptbase: A deductive object base for meta data management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 4(2): 167-192, March 1995.
[113] D.Meyer and C. Cannon. Building a Better Data Warehouse. Prentice Hall, 1998.
[114] Barton Jane, Currier Sarah, Hey Jessie M. N. Building Quality Assurance into Metadata Creation: an Analysis based on the Learning Objects and e-Prints Communities of Practice. In: Proceedings 2003 Dublin Core Conference: Supporting Communities of Discourse and Practice - Metadata Research and Applications(DCMI), Seattle, Washington, 2003. 39-48
[115] Randall Hauch, Alex Miller, Rob Cardwell. Information intelligence: metadata for information discovery, access, and integration. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, 2005. 793-798
[116] Andy S. Evans. Reasoning with UML class diagrams. In: Second IEEE Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Specification Techniques(WIFT98), 1998
[117] J. Simmonds. Consistency maintenance of uml models with description logic: [Master dissertation]. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, September 2003
[118] Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini. On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In: Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems(POD'98), 1998. 149-158
[119] Andrea Cali, Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini. A formal framework for reasoning on UML class diagrams. In: Proc. of the 13th Int. Sym. on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS'02), 2002. 503-513
[120] Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language specification version 1.4. September 2001
[121] Tom Mens, Theo D’Hondt. Automating support for software evolution in uml. Automated Software Engineering Journal, February 2000, 7(1): 39–59
[2] Devlin B. Data Warehouse– From Architecture to Implementation. Addison-Wesley Longman, 1997.
[3] Murry D, Anahory S. Data Warehousing in the Real World– A Practical Guide for Building Decision Support Systems. Addison Wesley Longman, 1997.
[4] Marieke G, Powell A, Day M. Improving the Quality of Metadata in Eprint Archives, Areiadne, Issue 38, 2004
[5] Robertson, R.J. Metadata Quality: Implications for Library and Information Science Professionals”, Library Review, Vol. 54, No.5, 2005:295-300.
[6] Moen, W.E., Stewart, E.L. and McClure. Assessing metadata quality: findings and methodological considerations from an evaluation of the U.S. Government Information Locater Service(GILS). In IEEE international Forum on Research and Technology Advances in Digital Libraries, ADL’98 Proceedings, Santa Barbara, California, 1998.
[7] Bruce, T.R., Hillmann, D.I. The Continuum of Metadata Quality: Defining, Expressing, Exploiting. In Metadata in Practice, American Library Association, 2004:238-256.
[8] Bernstein P., U. Dayal. An overview of repository technology. Proceedings of the 24th VLDB Conference Santiage Chile, 1998.
[9] Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility Specification Version 1.4.
[10] Object Management Group. Common Warehouse Metamodel(CWM) Specification Version 1.1. November 2001.
[11] John Poole, Dan Chang, Douglas Tolbert, David Mellor. Common Warehouse Metamodel Developer’s Guide. New York, John Wiley & Sons Inc, January 2003.
[12] M.H. Brackett. The Data Warehouse Challenge. Wiley, 1996.
[13] CDIF CASE Data Interchange Format– Overview EIA CDIF document EIA/IS 106.
[14] CDIF– Integrated Meta-Model EIA CDIF documents EIA/IS-111 EIA/is-112, EIA/IS-114, EIA/IS-115.
[15] The Meta Data Coalition. Meta Data Interchange Specification(MDIS Version 1.1), 1997. http://www.MDCinfo.com/MDIS/MDIS11.html.
[16] ISO/IEC 10027: 1990 Information Technology– Information Resource Dictionary System Framework 1990-06-15.
[17] Wakeman, L., J. Jowett. PCTE– The Standard for Open Repositories. Prentice-Hall. May 1993.
[18] ISO/IEC 10728, Information Technology– Information Resource Dictionary System(IRDS) Services Interface, April 1993.
[19] ISO/IEC 13238-3, Information Technology– Data Management– Part 3: IRDS export/import facility, Dec 1998.
[20] Purpose of an IRDS. http://www.irds.org/purpose.html.
[21] European Computer Manufacturer’s Association(ECMA). Portable Common Tool Environment(PCTE)– Abstract Specification, fourth edition, 1997.
[22] OMG. XMI– XMI Metadata Interchange Specification. Version 2.0. OMG Document formal/03-05-02, May 2003.
[23] Cooperative Research Centre for Distributed Systems Technology(DSTC). dMOF Version 1.1. User guide. 2000.
[24] Matula, M. NetBeans Metadata Repository(White Paper). March 2003.
[25] Unisys Corporation. JMI-RI Documentation. CIM Guide. Version 1.3. October 2002.
[26] Adaptive Ltd. Adaptive Enterprise Repository(White Paper). May 2002.
[27] Unisys Universal Repository Manager, http://www.unisys.com/marketplace/urep/.
[28] Anthony Finkelstein, George Spanoudakis, and David Till. Managing interference. In Joint proceedings of second international software architecture workshop(ISAW-2) and international workshop on multiple perspectives in software development (Viewpoints’96) on SIGSOFT’96 workshops, pages 172–174. ACM Press, 1996. New York, NY, USA.
[29] Bashar Nuseibeh, Steve Easterbrook, and Alessandra Russo. Leveraging inconsistency in software development. IEEE Computer, 33(4):24–29, 2000.
[30] George Spanoudakis and Andrea Zisman. Inconsistency management in software engineering: Survey and open research issues. In Chang S. K., editor, Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, volume 1, pages 329–380. World Scientific Publishing Co., 2001.
[31] Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini. Identification constraints and functional dependencies in description logics. In Proc. of the 17th Int. Joint Conf. on ArtificialIntelligence(IJCAI 2001), 2001.
[32] Anthony Finkelstein. A foolish consistency: Technical challenges in consistency management. In I. Ibrahim, J. K¨ung, and N. Revell, editors, Proceedings International Conference Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA2000), volume 1873 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–5. Springer, September 2000. London, UK.
[33] John C. Grundy, John G. Hosking, and Warwick B. Mugridge. Inconsistency management for multiple-view software development environments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(11):960–981, 1998.
[34] Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[35] Carlos Areces. Logic Engineering. PhD thesis, Institute for Logic Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, 2000. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[36] Ulrike Sattler. Description Logics for ontologies. In Aldo de Moor, Wilfried Lex, and Bernhard Ganter, editors, Proceedings of eleventh International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS2003), volume 2746 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, July 21-25 2003. Dresden, Germany.
[37] Franz Baader, Ian Horrocks, and Ulrike Sattler. Description Logics as ontology languages for the semantic web. In Dieter Hutter and Werner Stephan, editors, Festschrift in honor of J¨org Siekmann, volume 2605 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 2005.
[38] Anthony Finkelstein, Dov M. Gabbay, Anthony Hunter, Jeff Kramer, and Bashar Nuseibeh. Inconsistency handling in multi-perspective specifications. In Ian Sommerville and Manfred Paul, editors, Proceedings of fourth European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC1993), volume 717 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 84–99. Springer, September 1993. Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
[39] Bashar Nuseibeh, Jef Kramer, and Anthony Finkelstein. A framework for expressing the relationship between multiple views in requirements specification. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(10):760–773, 1994.
[40] Hans Nissen, Manfred Jeusfeld, Matthias Jarke, Georg Zemanek, and Harald Guber. Managing multiple requirements perspectives with metamodels. IEEE Software, 13(2):37–47, March 1996.
[41] Wolfgang Emmerich, Anthony Finkelstein, Stefano Antonelli, Stephen Armitage, and Richard Stevens. Managing standards compliance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(6):836–851, 1999.
[42] Bernhard Nebel. Terminological cycles: Semantics and computational properties. In J. F. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, pages 331–361. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, USA, 1991. chapter 11.
[43] Ronald Brachman and Hector Levesque. The tractability of nsubsumption in frame-based description languages. In Ronald Brachman, editor, Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 34–37. AAAI Press, August 1984
[44] Manfred Schmidt-Schauss and Gert Smolka. Attributive concept descriptions with omplements. Artificial Intelligence, 48(1):1–26, 1991.
[45] Volker Haarslev, Carsten Lutz, and Ralf M¨oller. A Description Logic with concrete domains and role-forming predicates. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3):351–384, 1999.
[46] Ian Horrocks and Ulrike Sattler. A Description Logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3):385–410, 1999.
[47] Volker Haarslev and Ralf M¨oller. Expressive abox reasoning with number restrictions, role hierarchies, and transitively closed roles. In A.G. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, editors, Proceedings of seventh International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000), pages 273–284. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, April 2000. Breckenridge, COL, USA.
[48] Klaus Schild. A correspondence theory for terminological logics: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI1991), pages 466–471. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, August 1991. Sydney, Australia.
[49] Ulrike Sattler. A concept language extended with different kinds of transitive roles. In G. G¨orz and S. H¨olldobler, editors, 20. Deutsche Jahrestagung f¨ur K¨unstliche Intelligenz, number 1137 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 1996.
[50] Michael J. Fischer and Richard E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. Journal of Computer and System Science, 18(2):194–211, 1979.
[51] Ian Horrocks, Ulrike Sattler, and Stephan Tobies. Practical reasoning for expressive Description Logics. In Harald Ganzinger, David McAllester, and Andrei Voronkov, editors,Proceedings sixth International Conference on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR’99), number 1705 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 161–180. Springer, September 1999.
[52] Stephan Tobies. Complexity Results and Practical algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH-Aachen, 2001. Aachen, Germany.
[53] Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Daniele Nardi. Reasoning in expressive Description Logics. In John Alan Robinson and Andrei Voronkov, editors, Handbook of Automated Reasoning (in 2 volumes), pages 1581– 1634. Elsevier Science Publishers and MIT Press, 2001.
[54] M. Buchheit, F.M. Donini, A. Schaerf, Decidable reasoning in terminological knowledge representation systems, J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 1 (1993) 109–138.
[55] Franz Baader and Philipp Hanschke. A scheme for integrating concrete domains into concept languages. DFKI Research Report RR-91-10, Deutsches Forschungszentrum f¨ur K¨unstliche Intelligenz, 1991. Kaiserslautern, Germany.
[56] Carsten Lutz. NExpTime-complete Description Logics with concrete domains. In Rajeev Gor′e, Alexander Leitsch, and Tobias Nipkow, editors, Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR2001), number 2083 in Lecture Notes in Artifical Intelligence, pages 45–60. Springer, 2001. Siena, Italy.
[57] Ronald J. Brachman. What’s in a concept: Structural foundations for semantic networks. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9(2):127–152, 1977.
[58] Alex Borgida and David W. Etherington. Hierarchical knowledge bases and efficient disjunctive reasoning. In Ronald J. Brachman, Hector J. Levesque, and Raymond Reiter, editors, Proceedings of first International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR1989), pages 33–43. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, May 1989. Toronto, Canada.
[59] Robert MacGregor. Inside the LOOM description classifier. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3):88–92, 1991.
[60] Ian Horrocks. FaCT and iFaCT. In Patrick Lambrix, Alexander Borgida, Maurizio Lenzerini, Ralf M¨oller, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider, editors, Proceedings of 1999 International Workshop on Description Logics (DL1999), volume 22 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 133–135, July 1999. Link¨oping, Sweden.
[61] Volker Haarslev and Ralf M¨oller. RACER system description. In Rajeev Gor′e, AlexanderLeitsch, and Tobias Nipkow, editors, Proceedings Automated Reasoning, First International Joint Conference, (IJCAR2001), volume 2083 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 701–706. Springer, June 2001. Siena, Italy.
[62] Lori Alperin Resnick, Alex Borgida, Ronald J. Brachman, Deborah L. McGuinness, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Kevin C. Zalondek. CLASSIC Description and Reference Manual for the Common Lisp implementation. AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NY, USA, December 1995. Version 2.3.
[63] David Brill. Loom Reference Manual. University of Southern California, version 2.0 edition, December 1993.
[64] University of Southern California. Loom Knowledge Representation System 4.0. http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/, December 2004.
[65] University of Southern California. PowerLoom Knowledge Representation System 4.0. http://www.isi.edu/isd/LOOM/PowerLoom/index.html, December 2004.
[66] Sean Bechhofer, Ian Horrocks, Carole Goble, and Robert Stevens. OilEd: a Reason-able Ontology Editor for the Semantic Web. In Franz Baader, Gerhard Brewka, and Thomas Eiter, editors, Proceedings of Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Joint German/Austrian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2174 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 396–408. Springer, September 2001. Vienna.
[67] Volker Haarslev and Ralf M¨oller. RACER User’s Guide and Reference Manual, version 1.7 edition, March 2003.
[68] Volker Haarslev, Ralf M¨oller, and Michael Wessel. RACER User’s Guide and Reference Manual, version 1.7.19 edition, April 2004.
[69] S. Chaudhuri and U. Dayal. An overview of data warehousing and OLAP technology. SIGMOD Record, 26(1), March 1997.
[70] V. K. Chaudhri, A. Farquhar, R. Fikes, P. D. Karp, and J. P. Rice. OKBC: A programmatic foundation for knowledge base interoperability. In Proceedings of the AAAI-98, Madison, WI, July 1998, 1998.
[71] M. J. Corey, M. Abbey, I. Abramson, and B. Taub. Oracle8 Data Warehousing: A Practical Guide to Successful Data Warehouses Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 1997.
[72] W. H. Inmon. Building the Data Warehouse. John Wiley & Sons, 1993.
[73]梅婧,林作铨.从ALC到SHOQ(D):描述逻辑及其Tableau算法.计算机科学, 2005,32(3): 1~11.
[74]董明楷,蒋运承,史忠植.一种带缺省推理的描述逻辑.计算机学报, 2003, 26(6): 729~736.
[75] M. Jarke and Y. Vassiliou. Data warehouse quality design: A review of the DWQ project. In Proc. 2th Conference on Information Quality, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1997.
[76] D. O’Leary. Using AI in knowledge management: Knowledge bases and ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(3):34-39, May/June 1998.
[77] T. Stohr, R. Muller, and E. Rahm. An integrative and uniform model for metadata management in data warehousing environments. In Proceedings of the Intl. Workshop on Design and Management of Data Warehouses(DMDW 99), pages 12.1-12.16, Heidelberg, Germany, June 1999.
[78] C. White. Managing distributed data warehouse meta data. http://www.dmreview.com/issues/1999/feb/articles/feb99_46.htm.
[79] J. Draskic, J-M. Le Goff, I. Willers, F. Estrella, Z. Kovacs, R. McClatchey, M. Zse-ni,“Using a meta-model as the basis for enterprise-wide data navigation”, Proc. of the Third IEEE Meta-Data Conference (META-DATA'99), Bethesda, Maryland, 1999.
[80] D. Marco, Building and managing the meta data repository - a full lifecycle guide, Wiley, New York, 2000.
[81] G. Tozer, Metadata management for information control and business success, Artech House, Boston, 1999.
[82] Dushay, N. and D. Hillmann. 2003. Analyzing metadata for effective use and re-use. Dublin Core Conference: Supporting Communities of Discourse and Practice-Metadata Research & Applications.
[83] J. B′ezivin. On the unification power of models. Software and System Modeling, 4(2):171–188, 2005.
[84] J. B′ezivin, F. Jouault, P. Rosenthal, and P. Valduriez. Modeling in the Large and Modeling in the Small. In Model Driven Architecture, LNCS 3599, pages 33–46, 2005.
[85] E. Breton and J. B′ezivin. Weaving Definition and Execution Aspects of Process Meta-models. In 35th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, page 290, 2002.
[86] P. Loucopoulos and V. Kavakli. Enterprise Knowledge Management and ConceptualModelling. In Conceptual Modeling(ER’97), pages 123–143. Springer, 1997.
[87] J.-N.Mazon, J. Trujillo,M. Serrano, andM. Piattini. Applying MDA to the development of data warehouses. In Proceedings DOLAP’05, pages 57–66, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press.
[88] Object Management Group. UML 2.0 Object Constraint Language (OCL) Specification. 2005.
[89] J. Trujillo, M. Palomar, J. G′omez, and I.-Y. Song. Designing Data Warehouses with OO Conceptual Models. IEEE Computer, 34(12):66–75, 2001.
[90] C. Pons, R. Giandini, and G. Baum,“Dependency relations between models in the Unified Process”, Proceeding of IEEE International Workshop on Software Specification and Design IWSSD, San Diego, California, USA, November 2000. IEEE Computer Society Press.
[91] Mellor S.J. and Balcer M.J.: Executable UML: a foundation for model-driven architecture. Addison-Wesley, 2002.
[92] Reggio G., et al.: Towards a rigorous semantics of UML supporting its multiview approach. In H. Hussmann, editor, Proc. FASE 2001, LNCS 2029. Springer, 2001.
[93] Clark A., Evans A., and Kent S.: The Meta-Modeling Language Calculus: Foundation Semantics for UML. In Proceedings of ETAPS FASE Conference. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
[94] Wirsing M., Knapp A.: View Consistency in Software Development, In Martin Wirsing, Alexander Knapp, and Simonetta Balsamo, editors, Proc. 9th Int. Wsh. Monterey. Radical Innovations of Software and Systems Engineering in the Future (RISSEF’02). Revised Papers, volume 2941 of Lect. Notes Comp. Sci., pages 341–357. Springer, Berlin, 2004.
[95] B. Hnatkowska, Z. Huzar, J. Magott, Consistency Checking in UML models, 4th Int. Conf. on Information Systems, Modeling ISM'01, 2001.
[96] [15] J.L. Sourrouille, G . Caplat, "Constraint Checking in UML Modeling", SEKE'02, ACM-SIGSOFT, pp217-224
[97] P. Bottoni, M. Koch, F. Parisi-Pressice, and G. Taenzer. Consistency checking and visualization of OCL constraints. In UML 2000, LNCS 1936. Springer Verlag, 2000.
[98] C. Ghezzi and B. Nuseibeh. Special issue on managing inconsistency in software development (1). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(11):906–1001, November 1998.
[99] C. Ghezzi and B. Nuseibeh. Special issue on managing inconsistency in softwaredevelopment (2). IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(11):782–869, November 1999.
[100] Tolbert, D., "CWM: A Model-Based Architecture for Data Warehouse Interchange", Workshop on Evaluating Software Architectural Solutions 2000, University of California at Irvine, May, 2000.
[101] David Harel and Bernhard Rumpe. Modeling languages: Syntax, semantics and all that stuff. Technical Report MCS00-16, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel, 2000.
[102] Warmer J, Kleppe A., The Object Constraint Language Getting your models ready for MDA, Addison Wesley, 2003.
[103] David Garlan, Shan-Wen Chen, and Andrew J. Kompanek. Reconciling the Needs of Architectural Description with Object-Modeling Notations. Science of Computer Programming Journal, Special issue on UML, 44(1):23–49, July 2002.
[104] Joaquin Miller and Jishnu Mukerji. Model driven architecture (MDA). Draft ormsc/2001-07-01, Architecture Board ORMSC, July 2001.
[105] Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language specification version 1.5.formal/2003-03-01, March 2003.
[106] P. Vassiliadis, A. Simitsis und S. Skiadopoulos: Conceptual Modeling for ETL Processes. In: Dimitri Theodoratos (Ed.): Proceedings of ACM Fifth International Workshop on Data Warehousing and OLAP (DOLAP 2002), November 8, 2002, McLean, VA.
[107] B. Husemann, J. Lechtenborger, G. Vossen. Conceptual data warehouse modeling. In Proc. 2nd Intl. Workshop on Design and Management of Data Warehouses (DMDW), pp. 6.1–6.11, Stockholm, Sweden (2000).
[108] M. Jarke, M. Lenzerini, Y. Vassiliou, P. Vassiliadis (Eds.), Fundamentals of Data Warehouses, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
[109] G. Engels, J.H. Hausmann, R. Heckel, and St. Sauer. Testing the consistency of dynamic UML diagrams. In Proc. Sixth International Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2002), June 2002. Pasadena, CA, USA.
[110] F.M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, A. Schaerf, Reasoning in description logics, in: G. Brewka (Ed.), Principles of Knowledge Representation, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, CSLI Publications, 1996, pp. 193–238.
[111] I. Horrocks, P.F. Patel-Schneider, Optimizing description logic subsumption, J. LogicComput. 9 (3) (1999) 267–293.
[112] M. Jarke, R. Gallersdorfer, M. Jeusfeld, M. Staudt, and S. Eherer. Conceptbase: A deductive object base for meta data management. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 4(2): 167-192, March 1995.
[113] D.Meyer and C. Cannon. Building a Better Data Warehouse. Prentice Hall, 1998.
[114] Barton Jane, Currier Sarah, Hey Jessie M. N. Building Quality Assurance into Metadata Creation: an Analysis based on the Learning Objects and e-Prints Communities of Practice. In: Proceedings 2003 Dublin Core Conference: Supporting Communities of Discourse and Practice - Metadata Research and Applications(DCMI), Seattle, Washington, 2003. 39-48
[115] Randall Hauch, Alex Miller, Rob Cardwell. Information intelligence: metadata for information discovery, access, and integration. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data, 2005. 793-798
[116] Andy S. Evans. Reasoning with UML class diagrams. In: Second IEEE Workshop on Industrial Strength Formal Specification Techniques(WIFT98), 1998
[117] J. Simmonds. Consistency maintenance of uml models with description logic: [Master dissertation]. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, September 2003
[118] Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini. On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In: Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems(POD'98), 1998. 149-158
[119] Andrea Cali, Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini. A formal framework for reasoning on UML class diagrams. In: Proc. of the 13th Int. Sym. on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS'02), 2002. 503-513
[120] Object Management Group. Unified Modeling Language specification version 1.4. September 2001
[121] Tom Mens, Theo D’Hondt. Automating support for software evolution in uml. Automated Software Engineering Journal, February 2000, 7(1): 39–59