SiD 2001: Semantics in Databases pp 82-99 | Cite as

Soft Constraints and Heuristic Constraint Correction in Entity-Relationship Modelling

  • Sven Hartmann
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2582)

Abstract

In entity-relationship modelling, cardinality constraints impose restrictions on the number of occurrences of objects in relationships. If violations may appear, cardinality constraints should be treated as soft constraints rather than as integrity constraints. Nevertheless one often expects them to be satisfied at least in average or up to a small number of exceptions. These expectations may compete each other and cause new kinds of inconsistencies. We discuss how these inconsistencies can be detected and repaired.

Keywords

Time Slot Project Team Object Type Integrity Constraint Soft Constraint 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Albrecht, E. Buchholz, A. Düsterhöft, and B. Thalheim. An informal and efficient approach for obtaining semantic constraints using sample data and natural language processing. LNCS, 1358:1–11, 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Calvanese and M. Lenzerini. On the interaction between ISA and cardinality constraints. In Proc. of Tenth Int. Conf. on Data Engin., pp. 204–213, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. V. Cherkassy and A. V. Goldberg. Negative cycle detection algorithms. Math. Programming, 85:277–311, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. V. Cherkassy, A. V. Goldberg, and T. Radzik. Shortest path algorithms: theory and experimental evaluation. Math. Programming, 73:129–174, 1996.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Di Nitto and L. Tanca. Dealing with deviations in DBMSs: an approach to revise consistency constraints. Integrity in Databases, FMLDO96, pp. 11–24. 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. V. Goldberg and T. Radzik. A heuristic improvement of the Bellman-Ford algorithm. Appl. Math. Letters, 6:3–6, 1993.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Gondran and M. Minoux. Graphs and algorithms. Wiley, Chichecter, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Hartmann. Graphtheoretic methods to construct entity-relationship databases. LNCS, 1017:131–145, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Hartmann. On the consistency of int-cardinality constraints. LNCS, 1507:150–163, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Hartmann. On the implication problem for cardinality constraints and functional dependencies. Annals Math. Artificial Intell., 33:253–307, 2001.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Hartmann. Coping with inconsistent constraint specifications. LNCS, 2224:241–255, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Kent. Consequences of assuming a universal relation. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 6:539–556, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. G. Kolliopoulos and C. Stein. Finding real-valued single source shortest paths in o(n 3) expected time. In Proc. 5th Int. Prog. Combin. Opt. Conf. 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Kwast. A deontic approach to database integrity. Annals Math. Artificial Intell., 9:205–238, 1993.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. L Lee and T. W. Ling. Resolving constraint confiicts in the integration of entityrelationship schemas. LNCS, 1331:394–407, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Lenzerini and P. Nobili. On the satisfability of dependency constraints in entity-relationship schemata. Inform. Systems, 15:453–461, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. W. Liddle, D. W. Embley, and S. N. Woodfield. Cardinality constraints in semantic data models. Data Knowledge Engrg., 11:235–270, 1993.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    H. Mannila and K. Räihä. The design of relational databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1992.MATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.-J. Ch. Meyer, R. J. Wieringa, and F. P. M. Dignum. The role of deontic logic in the specification of information systems. In J. Chomicki and G. Saake, editors, Logics for databases and information systems, pages 71–116. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. E. Tarjan. Data structures and network algorithms. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Thalheim. Foundations of entity-relationship modeling. Annals Math. Artificial Intell., 6:197–256, 1992.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    B. Thalheim. Entity-relationship modeling. Springer, Berlin, 2000.MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. Theodorates. Deductive object oriented schemas. LNCS, 1157:58–72, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Hartmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Information Systems & Information Science Research CentreMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations