A domain theoretic approach to higher-order relations

  • Peter Buneman
  • Atsushi Ohori
Contributed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 243)

Abstract

We have tried to show that the notion of inheritance leads to a natural representation of the operators of the relational algebra and that some of the basic properties of relational database theory, such as Armstrong's axioms, can be derived from some very simple domain theoretic relationships. If these ideas have any value one would expect to be able to represent other notions in database theory, such as multi-valued dependencies and the universal relation assumption within the same framework. However, given the apparent connection with Scott's “Information Systems”, a more pressing need is to work out a proper denotational semantics for relational databases.

In the longer term we hope that it will be possible to use an approach such as this to produce better type systems for database programming languages.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AïtK84]
    Aït-Kaci, H. “A Lattice Theoretic Approach to Computation based on a Calculus of Partially Ordered Type Structures”, PhD. Dissertation, Department of Computer and Information Science, Moore School/D2, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. (1984)Google Scholar
  2. [Atki85]
    Atkinson, M.P. and Buneman, O.P. “Types and Persistence in Database Programming Languages”, ACM Computing Surveys. To appear.Google Scholar
  3. [Banc85]
    Bancilhon, F. and Khoshafian, S., “A Calculus for Complex Objects”, Technical Report, MCC, Austin Texas, October 1985.Google Scholar
  4. [Brac85]
    Brachman, R.J. and Schmolze, J.G., “An Overview of the KL-One Knowledge Representation System”, Cognitive Science, 9,2, April 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [Bune82]
    Buneman, P., Frankel, R.E. and Nikhil, R., An Implementation Technique for Database Query Languages, ACM Transactions on Database Management, 7, 2, June 1982Google Scholar
  6. [Bune85]
    Buneman, O.P., “Data Types for Data Base Programming”, Proceedings of the Appin Conference on Data Types and Persistence, Technical Report, Department of Computing, Glasgow University, September, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [Card84]
    Cardelli, L., “A semantics of Multiple Inheritance”, Semantics of Data Types Kahn, G., MacQueen, D.B. and Plotkin, G. (eds), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, June 1984Google Scholar
  8. [Card85]
    Cardelli, L. and Wegner, P., “On Understanding Types, Data Abstraction, and Polymorphism”, ACM Computing Surveys January, 1986.Google Scholar
  9. [Cosm85]
    Cosmadakis, S.S., Kanellakis, P.C., Spyratos, N. “Partition Semantics for Relations”, Technical Report, Brown University, December 1985.Google Scholar
  10. [Gold80]
    Goldstein, I. P. and Bobrow, D. G., “Extending object oriented programming in Smalltalk”, Proceedings of the 1980 Lisp Conference, August, 1980.Google Scholar
  11. [Gord79]
    Gordon, M.J., Milner, A.J.R.G., and Wadsworth, C.P., Edinburgh LCF, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. [Lips79]
    Lipski, W. “On Semantic Issues Connected with Incomplete Information Databases, ACM Transactions on Database Systems 4,3 (1979).Google Scholar
  13. [Smit77]
    Smith, J.M. and Smith, D.C.P., “Database Abstractions — Aggregation and Generalization” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 2, 2, June 1977.Google Scholar
  14. [Ichb79]
    Ichbiah et al., Rationale of the Design of the Programming Language Ada, ACM Sigplan Notices, 14, 6, 1979Google Scholar
  15. [MacQ82]
    MacQueen, D.B. and Sethi, R., “A semantic model of types for applicative languages”, Technical Report, Bell Laboratories, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. [Ohor86]
    Ohori, A. Personal Communication, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. [Scot82]
    Scott, D. “Domains for Denotational Semantics” ICALP '82, Aarhus, Denmark, 1982.Google Scholar
  18. [Smyt78]
    Smyth, M.B. “Power Domains” Journal of Computer and System Science 16, 23–26 (1978)Google Scholar
  19. [Ship81]
    Shipman, D.W., The Functional Data Model and the Data Language DAPLEX, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 140–173, 6, 1, March 1981Google Scholar
  20. [Simo85]
    Jurgensen, H and Simovici, D.A., “Towards an Abstract Theory of Dependency Constraints in Relational Databases”, Technical Report 1/85, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Massachusetts, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. [Stoy77]
    Stoy, J. Denotational Semantics: The Scott-Strachey approach to Programming Language Theory. MIT Press, 1977Google Scholar
  22. [Ullm82]
    Ullman, J.D., Principles of Database Systems (2nd ed.), Computer Science Press, Rockville Md. (1982)Google Scholar
  23. [Zani84a]
    Zaniolo, C., “Database Relations with Null Values,” JCSS, 28 1, pp. 142–166, February 1984.Google Scholar
  24. [Zani84b]
    Zaniolo, C. “Prolog: A Database Query Language for All Seasons”, Proc. IEEE-ACM International Expert Database Systems Workshop, Kiawah Island, October 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Buneman
    • 1
  • Atsushi Ohori
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations