Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: A Workload Model on the Use of XML and Ontology in Benchmarking Heterogeneous Information Integration
Authors: 林玫儀
Lin,Mei Yi
Contributors: 諶家蘭
Seng,Jia Lang
Lin,Mei Yi
Keywords: 延伸標記語言
Heterogeneous Information Integration
Workload Model
Performance Evaluation
Date: 2003
Issue Date: 2009-09-18 14:34:30 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 隨著網際網路和企業內部網路的盛行,異質資訊整合成為電子化企業中一個重要的議題,在網路上進行異質資訊整合涉及許多不同新的資訊技術,目前已經有些研究試圖利用延伸標記語言以及本體論當作中介技術來整合異質資訊,為了有效管理企業內的資訊,我們需要一個績效評估模型來衡量異質資訊整合的效能。在本研究中,我們提出了一個在異質資訊整合中運用延伸標記語言及本體論的績效評估工作量模型,並且建立了一個工作量產生器雛形;本研究的目標是希望發展出一個結合延伸標記語言及本體論的工作量模型,以測試在電子化企業中的異質資訊整合是否能整合不同的資訊模型,並且從這些資訊模型中衍生出語意,此工作量模型包含了延伸標記語言與本體論的資料模型與查詢模型,它們是依照延伸標記語言與本體論學名式的資料結構與查詢功能所制訂的,此外,控制模型則定義了績效評估執行環境中所需設定的變數,為了讓此工作量模型能具可攜性和延展性,以便輕易地應用在不同的領域情境中,本研究採取學名結構式且使用者定義、領域獨立的設計方法,最後,我們利用雛形實作來驗證本研究所提出的研究方法。
With the popularity of Internet/Intranet, heterogeneous information integration becomes a hot IT topic in electronic business (EB) field. Heterogeneous information integration on the Web involves a number of new techniques. There have been research projects applying XML and ontology as mediated techniques to consolidate heterogeneous information. In order to manage and use information more effectively within the enterprise, a benchmark used to evaluate the mechanism of heterogeneous information integration is needed. In this research, we develop a XML and ontology benchmark workload model in heterogeneous information integration, and build a workload generation prototype. The objective of this research is to develop a workload model combines XML and ontology to test whether the heterogeneous information integration system under EB environment can overcome the diverse formats of content and derive meaning from this content. The workload model consists of XML and ontology data model and query model according to the generic data structure and query functionality. Also, a control model is created to set up the benchmark environment. In order to apply the workload model to different scenarios easier, this workload model is designed to be domain independent and generic-construct-based. Finally, we validate the research model through the prototype implementation.
Reference: 1. Andersen, B. (2001). What is an ontology. Retrieved February 5, 2004, from
2. Arasu, A., Cho, J., Garcia-Molina, H., Paepcke, A., & Raghavan, S. (2001). Searching the Web. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 1(1), 2–43.
3. Böhme, T., & Rahm, E. (2001). XMach-1: A Benchmark for XML Data Management. Proceedings of German database conference BTW2001, Oldenburg, Germany, 264-273.
4. Böhme, T., & Rahm, E. (2003). Multi-User Evaluation of XML Data Management Systems with XMach-1. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 2590, 148-159.
5. Bos, B. (1997). The XML Datamodel. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from
6. Beech, D., Malhotra, A., & Rys, M. (1999). A Formal Data Model and Algebra for XML. W3C XML Query working group note.
7. Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., & Maler, E. (2000). Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Second Edition). Retrieved January 30, 2004, from
8. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., & Sattler, U. (2003). Description logics as ontology languages for the semantic web. In Dieter Hutter and Werner Stephan (Ed.), Festschrift in honor of Jörg Siekmann, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer.
9. Chamberlin, D., Fankhauser, P., Marchiori, M., & Robie, J. (2003). XML Query Requirements. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from
10. Cui, Z., Jones, D., & O’Brien, P. (2001). Issues in ontology-based information integration. Proceedings of IJCAI-01 Workshop on E-Business & the Intelligent Web.
11. Elhaik, Q., Rousset, M-C, & Ycart., B. (1998). Generating Random Benchmarks for Description Logics. Proceedings of DL’98.
12. Fernández, M., Malhotra, A., Marsh, J., Nagy, M., & Walsh, N. (2003). XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from
13. Gray, J. (1993). The Benchmark Handbook (2nd ed.) . Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, Retrieved January 8, 2004, from
14. Gruber, T. R. (1993). Towards Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing. International Workshop on Formal Ontology, Padova, Italy.
15. Guo, Y., Heflin, J., & Pan, Z. (2003). Benchmarking DAML+OIL Repositories. Proceedings of the 2nd International Semantic Web Conference, LNCS, 2870, 613-627.
16. Gómez-Pérez, A. (1994). Some Ideas and Examples to Evaluate Ontologies. Technical Report KSL-94-65, Knowedge Systems Laboratory, Stanford University.
17. Gruninger, M., & Fox, M. S. (1995). Methodology for the design and evaluation of ontologies. Proceedings of IJCAI'95 Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing.
18. Horrocks, I. (2002). DAML+OIL: A Reason-able Web Ontology Language, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Extending Database Technology: Advances in Database Technology, 2-13.
19. Horrocks, I. (2002). DAML+OIL and Description Logic Reasoning. Retrieved February 12, 2004, from
20. Horrocks, I., & Patel-Schneider, P. (1998). DL systems comparison. Proceedings of DL’98.
21. Heflin, J. (2003). OWL Web Ontology Language Use Cases and Requirements. Retrieved February 5, 2004, from
22. Jiang, H., Lu, H., Wang, W., & Yu, J. X. (2002). Path Materialization Revisited: An Efficient Storage Model for XML Data. The 13th Australasian Database Conference (ADC 2002), Melbourne, Australia, 85-94.
23. Li, Y. G., Bressan, S., Dobbie, G., Lacroix, Z., Lee, M. L., Nambiar, U., & Wadhwa, B. (2001). XOO7: applying OO7 benchmark to XML query processing tool. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management (CIKM), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 167-174.
24. Lehti, P. (2001). Design and implementation of a data manipulation processor for an xml query processor. Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, Diplomarbeit.
25. Maier, A., Aguado, J., Bernaras, A., Laresgoiti, I., Pedinaci, C., Pena, N., & Smithers, T. (2003). Integration with Ontologies. Wissensmanagement 2003, 21-24.
26. Manolescu, I., Florescu, D., & Kossmann, D. (2001). Answering XML Queries over Heterogeneous Data Sources. Proceedings of the 27th VLDB Conference, Roma, Italy.
27. Nambiar, U., Lacroix, Z., Bressan, S., Lee, M. L., & Li, Y. G. (2002). Efficient XML Data Management: An Analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies (ECWeb), Aix en Provence, France, 87-98.
28. Nambiar, U., Lacroix, Z., Bressan, S., Lee, M. L., & Li, Y. G. (2002). Current Approaches to XML Management. IEEE Internet Computing Journal, 6(4), 43-51.
29. Noy, N. F., & McGuinness, D. L. (2001). Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology. Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880.
30. Noy, N. F., & Musen, M. A. (2002). Evaluating Ontology-Mapping Tools: Requirements and Experience. Proceedings of the OntoWeb-SIG3 Workshop EON 2002 at EKAW 2002, Siguenza, Spain, 1-14.
31. Omelayenko B. (2002). Ontology-Mediated Business Integration. Proceedings of the 13-th EKAW 2002 Conference, Siguenza, Spain, LNAI 2473, 264-269.
32. Rys, M. (2002). Proposal for an xml data modification language. Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, Proposal.
33. Schmidt, A., Waas, F., Manegold, S., & Kersten, M. (2003). A Look Back on the XML Benchmark Project. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), 2818, 263-278.
34. Schmidt, A. R., Waas, F., Kersten, M. L., Florescu, D., Manolescu, I., Carey, M. J., & Busse, R. (2001). The XML Benchmark Project. Technical Report INS-R0103, CWI, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
35. Schmidt, A., Waas, F., Kersten, M., Florescu, D., Carey, M. J., Manolescu, I., & Busse, R. (2001). Why and how to benchmark XML databases. ACM SIGMOD Record, 30(3), 27-32.
36. Schmidt, A. R., Waas, F., Kersten, M. L., Carey, M. J., Manolescu, I., & Busse, R. (2002). XMark: A Benchmark for XML Data Management. Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Hong Kong, China, 974-985.
37. Sengupta, A., & Mohan, S. (2003). Formal and conceptual models for XML structures - the past, present and future. Retrieved January 30, 2004, from
38. Stevens, R., Goble, C.A., & Bechhofer, S. (2000). Ontology-based Knowledge Representation for Bioinformatics. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 1(4), 398-414.
39. Suarez-Figueroa, M. C., & Gomez-Perez, A. (2003). Results of Taxonomic Evaluation of RDF(S) and DAML+OIL ontologies using RDF(S) and DAML+OIL Validation Tools and Ontology Platforms import services. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools (EON2003), Sanibel Island, Florida, USA.
40. Staab, S., Schnurr, H. P., Studer, R., & Sure, Y. (2001). Knowledge Processes and Ontologies. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(1), 26-34.
41. Simov, K., & Jordanov, S. (2002). BOR: a pragmatic DAML+OIL reasoner. On-To-Knowledge deliverable D-40, OntoText Lab.
42. Sullivan, D. (2003). Search Engine Sizes. Retrieved May 6, 2004 from
43. Tempich, C., & Volz, R. (2003). Towards a benchmark for Semantic Web reasoners - an analysis of the DAML ontology library. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Evaluation of Ontology-based Tools (EON2003), Sanibel Island, Florida, USA.
44. Uschold, M., King, M., Moralee, S., & Zorgios, Y. (1998). The Enterprise Ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(1), 31-89.
45. Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. (1996). Ontologies: principles, methods and applications. Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2), 122-147.
46. Weißenberg, N., & Gartmann, R. (2003). Ontology Architecture for Semantic Geo Services for Olympia 2008. In: Bernard, L., A. Sliwinski and C. Senkler (Eds). Münsteraner GI-Tage, Münster. IfGIprints 18. 267-283.
47. Weinberger, H., Te’eni, D., & Frank, A. J. (2003). Ontologies of Organizational Memory as a Basis for Evaluation. 11th ECIS'03 European Conference on Information Systems, Naples, Italy.
48. Wache, H., Vögele, T., Visser, U., Stuckenschmidt, H., Schuster, G., Neumann, H., & Hübner, S. (2001). Ontology-Based Integration of Information - A Survey of Existing Approaches. Proceedings of the IJCAI-01 Workshop: Ontologies and Information Sharing, 108-117.
49. Weiss, S. (1997). Glossary for Information Retrieval. Retrieve February 22, 2004, from
50. YoshiKawa, M., & Amagasa, T. (2001). XRel: A path-based approach to storage and retrieval of XML documents using relational databases. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 1(1), 110-141.
Description: 碩士
Source URI:
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[資訊管理學系] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
56013101.pdf104KbAdobe PDF1098View/Open
56013102.pdf95KbAdobe PDF1005View/Open
56013103.pdf154KbAdobe PDF1024View/Open
56013104.pdf448KbAdobe PDF1024View/Open
56013105.pdf467KbAdobe PDF960View/Open
56013106.pdf550KbAdobe PDF1055View/Open
56013107.pdf616KbAdobe PDF1051View/Open
56013108.pdf858KbAdobe PDF1091View/Open
56013109.pdf488KbAdobe PDF968View/Open
56013110.pdf458KbAdobe PDF959View/Open
56013111.pdf488KbAdobe PDF1145View/Open
56013112.pdf563KbAdobe PDF1102View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing