Databases Reference
In-Depth Information
9Conclu ion
There are many exciting questions to address in the growing research field of inter-
active techniques for matching. Industry and research has been attempting to address
problems of data heterogeneity for many years, yet this problem is ever more preva-
lent. When precision is necessary, we must rely on human reasoning and domain
expertise to help contribute to the matching process. Yet, it is important that we
assist users with the process by designing tools that give them access to the infor-
mation they require to make good decisions, by not hindering the process with
overwhelming information, and by automating parts of the procedure when pos-
sible. From a research perspective, it is important that we address the lack of tool
evaluation by carrying out more user-based evaluations. Heuristic evaluation proce-
dures could also be useful for comparing feature sets of matching tools. There also
needs to be more effort to make such findings and tools publicly available to help
with evaluation.
We need evaluation to help distinguish what features and approaches are useful
for particular use cases. We need theories to help explain these differences. Tools
encode a workflow process and this process must align with the user's own internal
process. By aligning these processes, we will be able to assist rather than hinder the
user. We must incorporate a “human in the loop,” where the human is an essential
component in the matching process. Helping to establish and harness this symbi-
otic relationship between human processes and the tool's automated process will
allow people to work more efficiently and effectively, and afford them the time to
concentrate on difficult tasks that are not easily automated.
References
Alexe et al. (2008) Muse: Mapping understanding and design by example. In: international
conference on data engineering, Cancun, 7-12 April 2008, pp 10-19
Bernstein PA, Melnik S (2007) Model management 2.0: Manipulating richer mappings. In: ACM
special interest group on management of data (SIGMOD), Beijing, China, September 2007.
ACM, NY, pp 1-12
Bernstein et al. (2006) Incremental schema matching. In: VLDB '06: Proceedings of the 32nd
international conference on very large databases, Seoul, Korea, September 2006. VLDB
Endowment, pp 1167-1170
Brooke J (1996) Usability evaluation in industry. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA,
McClelland IL (eds) SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. Taylor & Francis, London, pp
184-194
Coradeschi S, Saffiotti A (2006) Symbiotic robotic systems: Humans, robots, and smart
environments. IEEE Intell Syst 21(3):82-84. doi:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/
MIS.2006.59
Correndo et al. (2008a) Collaborative support for community data sharing. In: 2nd workshop on
collective intelligence in semantic web and social networks, Sydney, Australia, 12 December
2008
Correndo et al. (2008b) A community based approach for managing ontology alignments. In:
Ontology matching workshop, Karlsruhe, Germany, 26-30 October 2008
