Unsolvable problems related to the view integration approach

  • Bernhard Convent
Contributed Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 243)

Abstract

View integration is a method that should help to manage the complexity of design problems for extensive database applications with many different user groups. For each such user group the requirements and expectations are separately specified as simple view database schemes, which are subsequently integrated into a global scheme that is able to support all views.

In this paper we present a simple, formal specification method for view integration, which is used as a theoretical basis to show some severe computational limits of computer-aided view integration. Particularly, we prove that conflictfreeness of a set of views is undecidable and furthermore, we show that finite logical implication is undecidable for a simple class of integrity and integration constraints, which we believe to be essential to any reasonable integration method.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AAL]
    A. Albano, V. De Antonellis, A. Di Leva (eds.), ‘Computer-aided database design: the DATAID project', North-Holland, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. [BiCo]
    J. Biskup, B. Convent, ‘A formal view integration method', ACM-Sigmod International Conference on Management of Data, 1986, 398–407.Google Scholar
  3. [BLM]
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, M. Moscarini, ‘Views integration', in [Ceri], 1983, 57–84.Google Scholar
  4. [CaVi]
    M.A. Casanova, V.M.P. Vidal, ‘Towards a sound view integration methodology', 2nd ACM-Sigact-Sigmod Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1983, 36–47.Google Scholar
  5. [Ceri]
    S. Ceri (ed.), ‘Methodology and tools for data base design', North-Holland, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. [CFP]
    M.A. Casanova, R. Fagin, C.H. Papadimitriou, ‘Inclusion dependencies and their interaction with functional dependencies', 1st ACM-Sigact-Sigmod Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1982, 171–176.Google Scholar
  7. [ChVa]
    A.K. Chandra, M.Y. Vardi, ‘The implication problem for functional and inclusion dependencies is undecidable', SIAM J. Comput., Vol. 14, No. 3, 671–677, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [Codd1]
    E.F. Codd, ‘A relational model of data for large shared data banks', Comm. ACM 13 (6), 1970, 377–387.Google Scholar
  9. [Codd2]
    E.F. Codd, ‘Further normalization of the data base relational model', in ‘Data base systems', R. Rustin (ed.), Courant Computer Science Symposia 6, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1972, 33–64.Google Scholar
  10. [FaVa]
    R. Fagin, M.Y. Vardi, ‘The theory of data dependencies — a survey', IBM Research Report RJ 4321, IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. [GuLe]
    Y. Gurevich, H.R. Lewis, ‘The word problem for cancellation semigroups with zero', Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 49, No. 1, 1984, 184–191.Google Scholar
  12. [Gure]
    Y. Gurevich, ‘The word problem for certain classes of semigroups', Algebra and Logic, Vol. 5, 1966, 25–35. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  13. [Lall]
    G. Lallement, 'semigroups and combinatorial applications', John Wiley & Sons, 1979.Google Scholar
  14. [Lum]
    V.Y. Lum et. al., ‘1978 New Orleans data base design workshop report', 5th VLDB, 1979, 328–339.Google Scholar
  15. [Maie]
    D. Maier, ‘The theory of relational databases', Computer Science Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. [MBGW]
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, S. Greenspan, H.K.T. Wong, ‘Information system design at the conceptual level — the TAXIS project', IEEE Database Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984, 4–9.Google Scholar
  17. [Mitc]
    J.C. Mitchell, ‘The implication problem for functional and inclusion dependencies', Information and Control 56, 1983, 154–173.Google Scholar
  18. [NaGa]
    S.B. Navathe, S.G. Gadgil, ‘A methodology for view integration in logical database design', 8th VLDB, 1982, 142–164.Google Scholar
  19. [Nava]
    S.B. Navathe, ‘Important issues in database design methodologies and tools', in [AAL], 1985, 199–212.Google Scholar
  20. [NEL]
    S.B. Navathe, R. Elmasri, J. Larson, ‘Integrating user views in database design', IEEE COMPUTER, Jan. 1986, 50–62.Google Scholar
  21. [Post]
    E.L. Post, ‘Recursive unsolvability of a problem of Thue', Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 12, 1947, 1–11.Google Scholar
  22. [ReBr]
    D. Reiner, M. Brodie et al., ‘The database design and evaluation workbench (DDEW) project at CCA', IEEE Database Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1984, 10–15.Google Scholar
  23. [TeFr]
    T.J. Teorey, J.P. Fry, ‘Design of database structures', Prentice-Hall, 1982.Google Scholar
  24. [Ullm]
    J.D. Ullman, ‘Principles of database systems', 2nd ed., Computer Science Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. [Vard]
    M.Y. Vardi, ‘Fundamentals of dependency theory', in ‘Current trends in theoretical computer science', E. Börger (ed.), Computer Science Press, to appear.Google Scholar
  26. [YNW]
    S.B. Yao, S.B. Navathe, J.-L. Weldon, ‘An integrated approach to database design', Data Base Design Techniques I, Requirements and logical Structures, NYU Symposium New York, 1978, 1–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernhard Convent
    • 1
  1. 1.Informatik VIUniversität DortmundDortmund 50Federal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations