An ECA Rule Rewriting Mechanism for Peer Data Management Systems

  • Dan Zhao
  • John Mylopoulos
  • Iluju Kiringa
  • Verena Kantere
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3896)


Managing coordination among peer databases is at the core of research in peer data management systems. The Hyperion project addresses peer database coordination through Event-Condition-Action (ECA) rules. However, peer databases are intended for non-technical end users, such as a receptionist at a doctor’s office or an assistant pharmacist. Such users are not expected to know a technically demanding language for expressing ECA rules that are appropriate for coordinating their respective databases. Accordingly, we propose to offer a library of ”standard” rules for coordinating two or more types of peer databases. These rules are defined in terms of assumed standard schemas for the peer databases they coordinate. Once two acquainted peers select such a rule, it can be instantiated so that it can operate for their respective databases.

In this paper, we propose a mechanism for rewriting given standard rules into rules expressed in terms of the schemas of the two databases that are being coordinated. The rewriting is supported by Global-As-View mappings that are supposed to pre-exist between specific schemas and standard ones. More specifically, we propose a standard rule rewriting algorithm which we have implemented and evaluated.


Condition Part Family Doctor Global Schema Local Schema Event Part 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Halevy, A.Y.: Answering queries using views: A survey. The International Journal on Very Large Data Bases 10(4) (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kementsietsidis, A., Arenas, M., Miller, R.J.: Mapping Data in PeertoPeer Systems: Semantics and Algorithmic Issues. In: SIGMOD (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarke, I., Sandberg, O., Wiley, B., Hong, T., Freenet, W.: A distributed anonymous information storage and retrieval system. In: Federrath, H. (ed.) Designing Privacy Enhancing Technologies. LNCS, vol. 2009, p. 46. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Context2Context project,
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Halevy, A.Y., Ives, Z.G., Madhavan, J., Mork, P., Suciu, D., Tatarinov, I.: The Piazza Peer Data Management System. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 16(7), 787–798 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stoica, I., Morris, R., Karger, D., Kaashoek, F., Balakrishnan, H.: Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications. In: ACM SIGCOMM 2001, San Deigo, CA (August 2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serafini, L., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Bernstein, P.A.: The Local Relational Model: A Logical Formalization of Database Coordination. In: Blackburn, P., Ghidini, C., Turner, R.M., Giunchiglia, F. (eds.) CONTEXT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2680, pp. 286–299. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arenas, M., Kantere, V., Kementsietsidis, A., Kiringa, I., Miller, R., Mylopoulos, J.: The Hyperion Project: From Data Integration to Data Coordination. SIGMOD Record, Special Issue on Peer-to-Peer Data Management 32(3), 53–58 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paton, N.W. (ed.): Active Rules in Database Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rowstron, A., Druschel, P.: Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for largescale peer-to-peer systems. In: IFIP/ACM Middleware (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ratnasamy, S.P.: A Scalable Content-Addressable Network. PH.D. thesis (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xie, W.: Recognizing Composite Events for Event-Condition-Action Rules, Master Thesis (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kantere, V., Kiringa, I., Mylopoulos, J., Kementsietsidis, A., Arenas, M.: Coordinating Peer Databases Using ECA Rules. In: Aberer, K., Koubarakis, M., Kalogeraki, V. (eds.) DBISP2P 2003. LNCS, vol. 2944, pp. 108–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kantere, V., Mylopoulos, J., Kiringa, I.: A Distributed Rule Mechanism for Multidatabase Systems. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Schmidt, D.C. (eds.) CoopIS 2003, DOA 2003, and ODBASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2888, pp. 56–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lenzerini, M.: Data Integration: A Theoretical Perspective. In: PODS 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, D., Lenzerini, M., Vardi, M.: What is Query Rewriting? In: KRDB 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, D., Lenzerini, M., Vardi, M.: View-Based Query Processing: On the Relationship Between Rewriting, Answering and Losslessness. In: Eiter, T., Libkin, L. (eds.) ICDT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3363, pp. 321–336. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan Zhao
    • 1
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 1
  • Iluju Kiringa
    • 2
  • Verena Kantere
    • 3
  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.University of OttawaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.National Technical University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations