Abstract
Section 9.1 studies the concept of an integrity constraint and its importance in conceptual modeling. Section 9.2 shows that integrity constraints can be classified from several points of view. These classifications help us in understanding the nature of integrity constraints. Section 9.3 describes the definition of static constraints in logic and in UML. In general, integrity constraints are very diverse, but there are some particular kinds that appear very often. Section 9.4 describes some of them. Section 9.5 identifies the creation-time constraint, an important particular kind of transition constraint, and explains a way to define it in conceptual schemas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
9.6 Bibliographical Notes
Ackermann J, Turowski K (2006) A library of OCL specification patterns for behavioral specification of software components. CAiSE 2006, LNCS 4001:255–269.
Atzeni P, Parker DS (1988) Formal properties of net-based knowledge representation schemes. Data Knowl. Eng. 3:137–147.
Berardi D, Calvanese D, De Giacomo G (2005) Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artif. Intell. 168(1–2):70–118.
Bodart F, Pigneur Y (1993) Conception assistée des systèmes d’information. Masson.
Boman M, Bubenko JA Jr, Johannesson P, Wangler B (1997) Conceptual modelling. Prentice Hall.
Borgida A (1985b) Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 10(4):565–603.
Borgida A, Mylopoulos J, Schmidt JW (1993) The TaxisDL software description language. In: Jarke M (ed) Database application engineering with DAIDA. Springer, pp 63–84.
Bracchi G, Furtado A, Pelagatti G (1979) Constraint specification in evolutionary data base design. In: Schneider HJ (ed) Formal models and practical tools for information systems design. North-Holland, pp 149–165.
Costal D, Gómez C (2006) On the use of association redefinition in UML class diagrams. ER 2006, LNCS 4215:513–527.
Dey D, Storey VC, Barron TM (1999) Improving database design through the analysis of relationships. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 24(4):453–486.
Dignum F, Kemme T, Kreuzen W, Weigand H, Riet R van de (1987) Constraint modelling using a conceptual prototyping language. Data Knowl. Eng. 2:213–254.
Dubois E, Hagelstein J, Lahou E, Ponsaert P, Rifaut A, Williams F (1986) The ERAE model: A case study. In: Olle et al. (eds) pp 87–105.
Formica, A (2002) Finite satisfiablity of integrity constraints in object-oriented database schemas. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.14(1):123–139.
Furtado A, Casanova MA, Tucherman L (1987) The CHRIS consultant. ER 1987, North-Hollland, pp 515–532.
Godfrey P, Grant J, Gryz J, Minker J (1998) Integrity constraints: Semantics and applications. In: Chomicki and Saake (eds) pp 265–306.
Gogolla M, Bohling J, Richters M (2005) Validating UML and OCL models in USE by automatic snapshot generation. Software and System Modeling 4(4):386–398.
Griethuysen JJ van (ed) (1982) Concepts and terminology for the conceptual schema and the information base. ISO TC97/SC5/WG3.
Halpin T (2001) Information modeling and relational databases: From conceptual analysis to logical design. Morgan Kaufmann.
Hammer M, McLeod D (1981) Database description with SDM: A semantic database model. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 6(3):351–386.
Jarrar M, Heymans S (2006) Unsatisfiability reasoning in ORM conceptual schemes. EDBT Workshops 2006, LNCS 4254:517–534.
Kowalski R (1978) Logic for data description. In: Gallaire H, Minker J (eds) Logic and data bases. Plenum Press, pp 77–103.
Lenzerini M (1987) Covering and disjointness constraints in type networks. ICDE 1987:386–393.
Lundberg B (1983) On correctness of information models. Inf. Syst. 8(2):87–93.
Motro A (1989) Integrity = validity + completeness. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 14(4):480–502.
Nicolas JM (1982) Logic for improving integrity checking in relational data bases. Acta Informatica 18:227–253.
Nicolas JM, Gallaire H (1978) Data base: Theory vs. interpretation. In: Gallaire H, Minker J (eds) Logic and data bases. Plenum Press, pp 33–54.
Olivé A (2003b) Integrity constraints definition in object-oriented conceptual modeling languages. ER 2003, LNCS 2813:349–362.
Ram S, Khatri V (2005) A comprehensive framework for modeling set-base business rules during conceptual database design. Inf. Syst. 30:89–118.
Reiter R (1992) What should a database know? J. Log. Program. 14(1,2):127–153.
Richters M, Gogolla M (2000) Validating UML models and OCL constraints. UML 2000, LNCS 1939:265–277.
Shipman DW (1981) The functional data model and the data language DAPLEX. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 6(1):140–173.
Queralt A, Teniente E (2006b) Reasoning on UML class diagrams with OCL constraints. ER 2006, LNCS 4215:497–512.
Thalheim B (2000) Entity-relationship modeling. Springer.
Tsichritzis DC, Lochovsky FH (1982) Data models. Prentice Hall.
Wieringa R, Meyer JJ, Weigand H (1989) Specifying dynamic and deontic integrity constraints. Data Knowl. Eng. 4:157–189.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Integrity Constraints. In: Conceptual Modeling of Information Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39390-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39390-0_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-39389-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-39390-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)