Graphical normal forms based on root dependencies in relational data base systems

  • Sudhir K. Arora
  • K. C. Smith


Normal forms and dependencies are an area of great current interest in the design of relational data bases. Only a subclass, namely, root dependencies and the normal forms based on them, are of direct interest to the data base designer. Dependencies outside this subclass do not have clear cut semantics and may in the long run prove to be of theoretical interest only. We have proposed the fifth normal form (5NF) to control the pattern of codependancy, the highest known root dependency. We have also shown a strong parallel between root dependencies and their normal forms and a family of hypergraphs calledS-diagrams. Graphical normal forms, based onS-diagrams have been proposed and their equivalence to conventional normal forms proved.

Key words

Relational data bases semantics of relations normal forms dependencies data base design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. W. Armstrong, “Dependency Structures of Data Base Relationships,” Proc. of IFIP 74, 580–583 (North Holland, New York, 1974).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. K. Arora and K. C. Smith, “A Graphical Interpretation of Dependency Structures in Relational Data Bases,” (Submitted for publication in theInternational Journal of Computer and Information Sciences).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. K. Arora and K. C. Smith, “A Normal Form Based on Theta-Join and Projection for Relational Data Bases,”IEEE COMPCON FALL,XI:295–300 (Washington, D.C., 1980).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. K. Arora and K. C. Smith, “Applications ofS-diagrams to Relational Data Bases,” in preparation.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. K. Arora and K. C. Smith, “A Theory of Well Connected Relations,”J. of Information Sciences 19:97–134 (1979).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. K. Arora and K. C. Smith, “A Dependency Theory and a ‘New’ Dependency for Relational Data Bases,”ACM Computer Science Conference (Dated, 1979).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. K. Arora and K. C. Smith, “Well Connected Relations in Dependency Structures of Data Bases,” Conference of the Canadian Information Processing Society 95–101 (Quebec City, 1979).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. A. Bernstein, “Normalization and Functional Dependencies in the Relational Data Base Model,” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, 1975).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. F. Codd, “A Rational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks,”Comm. of the ACM. 13 (6):377–387 (1970).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. F. Codd, “Further Normalization of the Data Base Relational Model,” inCourant Computer Science Symposium: Data Base Systems, Ed. R. Rustin,6:33–64 (Prentice Hall, New York 1971).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. F. Codd, “Recent Investigations in Relational Data Base Systems,” IFIP 74, (North-Holland Pub. Co., New York 1974).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Delobel, “Normalization and Hierarchical Dependencies in the Relational Data Model,”ACM TODS. 3 (3):201–222 (1978).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Fagin, “Horn Clauses and Database Dependencies,”IBM Res. Report, RJ2741 (1980).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Fagin, “Normal Forms and Relational Operators,”ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 153–160 (Boston, 1979).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Fagin, “A Normal Form for Relational Data Bases that is Based on Domains and Keys,”IBM Res. Rep., RJ 2520 (32950) (1979).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Fagin, “Multivalued Dependencies and a New Normal Form for Relational Databases,”ACM TODS 2 (3):262–278 (1977).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. L. Furtado and L. Kerschberg, “An Algebra of Quotient Relations,”ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1–8 (Toronto, 1977).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    I. J. Heath, “Unacceptable File Operations in a Relational Data Base,” Proc.ACM SIGFIDET Workshop on Data Description, Access and Control, 19–33 (1971).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Janssens and J. Paredaens, “General Dependencies,” University of Antwerp, Res. Rep. 79–35, (Dec. 1979).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Y. Lien, “Multivalued Dependencies with Null Values in Relational Databases,” VLDB, 61–66 (Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 1979).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. O. Mendelzon and D. Mairer, “Generalized Mutual Dependencies and the Decomposition of Database Relations,” VLDB, 75–82 (Brazil, 1979).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Mairer, A. O. Mendelzon, and Y. Sagiv, “Testing Implications of Data Dependencies,”Supplement ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 20–28 (Boston, 1979).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. M. Nicolas, “Mutual Dependencies and Some Results on Undecomposable Relations,” VLDB 78, (Berlin, 1978).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. M. Nicolas, “Addendum and Erratum to ‘Mutual Dependencies and Some Results on Undecomposable Relations,” Unpublished Report, ONERA, CERT, France (August 1978).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. M. Nicolas, Private Communication (Dec. 1978).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Paredaens and H. Gallaire, “Transitive Dependencies in a Data base Scheme,”R.A.I.R.O. Informatique/Computer Science,14 (2):149–163 (1980).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Rissanen, “Independent Components of Relations,”ACM Trans. on Database Systems,2:4, 317–325 (1977).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. Rissanen, “Theory of Relations for Data Bases—A Tutorial Survey,” Proc. 7th Symp. on Math. Foundations of Computer Science,Lecture Notes in Computer Science,64:537–551 (Springer-Verlag, 1978).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    F. Sadri and J. D. Ullman, “A Complete Axiomatization for a Large Class of Dependencies in Relational Databases,” Proc. 12th Annual ACM Symp. on Theory of Computing (1980).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Y. Sagiv and S. Walecka, “Subset Dependencies as an Alternative to Embedded Multivalued Dependencies,” Dept. of Computer Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (UIUCDS-R-79-980), (UILU-ENG 79 1732), (July 1979).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. A. Schmid and J. R. Swenson, “On the Semantics of the Relational Data Model,”ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 211–223 (1875).Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    J. M. Smith, “A Normal Form for Abstract Syntax,”Proc. VLDB, 156–162 (West Berlin, 1978).Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    M. Yannakakis and C. M. Papadimitriou, “Algebraic Dependecies,”M.I.T, Research Report, (1980).Google Scholar
  34. 33.
    C. Zaniolo, “Analysis and Design of Relational Schemata for Database Systems,” (Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA-ENG-7669, 1976).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sudhir K. Arora
    • 1
  • K. C. Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringWayne State UniversityDetroit
  2. 2.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations