Improving Integrity Constraint Enforcement by Extended Rules and Dependency Graphs

  • Steffen Jurk
  • Mira Balaban
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2113)

Abstract

Integrity enforcement (IE) is important in all areas of information processing - DBs, web based systems, e-commerce. Beside checking and enforcing consistency for given data modifications approaches for IE have to cope with termination control, repair mechanisms, effect preservation and efficiency. However, existing approaches handle those problems in many different ways. Often the generation of repairs is too complex, termination of repairs is specified imprecise and effect preservation is insufficient. In this work we propose to extend integrity constraints by termination bounds and to represent the enforcement task by dependency graphs (DG) which allow efficient pre-processing without costly run-time evaluation of constraints. Further, we present an optimization technique by serializing DGs and a history approach for effect preservation. Our main contribution is an uniform framework that considers all relevant criteria for integrity enforcement and shows how termination control, effect preservation and efficiency can be designed to be used within modern database management systems.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Balaban and P. Shoval. EER as an active conceptual schema on top of a database schema-object-oriented as an example. Technical report, Information Systems Program, Department of industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, ISRAEL, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mira Balaban and Steffen Jurk. The ACS Approach for Integrity Enforcement. Technical report, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, April 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Baralis and J. Widom. An algebraic approach to static analysis of active database rules. In ACM Transactions on Database Systems, volume 25(3), pages 269–332, September 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steffen Jurk. The active consistent specializations approach for consistency enforcement. Master’s thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, Cottbus Technical University, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Lenzerini and P. Nobili. On the satisfiability of dependency constraints in entity-relationship schemata. Information Systems, 15(4):453–461, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Mayol and Ernest Teniete. A survey of current methods for integrity constraint maintenance and view updating. In Chen, Embley, Kouloumdjian, Liddle, Roddick, editor, Intl. Conf. on Entity-Relationship Approach, volume 1727 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 62–73, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Mayol, E. Teniente. Structuring the process of integrity maintenance. In Proc. 8th Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pages 262–275, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Mayol, E. Teniente. Addressing efficiency issues during the process of integrity maintenance. In Proc. 10th Conf. on Database and Expert Systems Applications, pages 270–281, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Bry. Intensional updates: Abduction via deduction. In Proc. 7th Conf. on Logi Programming, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Bry, H. Decker, R. Manthey. A uniform approach to constraint satisfaction and constraint satisfiability in deductive databases. Proceedings of Extending Database Technology, pages 488–505, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Decker. Integrity enforcements on deductive databases. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Expert Database Systems, pages 271–285, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Celma, H. Decker. Integrity checking in deductive databases. the ultimate method? Proceedings of 5th Australiasian Database Conference, pages 136–146, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S.K. Das, M.H. Wiliams. A path finding method for constraint checking in deductive databases. Data and Knowledge Engineering 3, pages 223–244, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S.Y. Lee, T.W. Ling. Further improvement on integrity constraint checking for stratisfiable deductive databases. In Proc. 22th Conf. on VLDB, pages 495–505, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K.D. Schewe and B. Thalheim. Limitations of rule triggering systems for integrity maintenance in the context of transition specifications. Acta Cybernetica, 13:277–304, 1998.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    K.D. Schewe and B. Thalheim. Towards a theory of consistency enforcement. Acta Informatics, 36:97–141, 1999.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van der Voort and A. Siebes. Termination and confluence of rule execution. In In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, November 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Widom and S. Ceri. Deriving production rules for constraint maintenance. In Proc. 16th Conf. on VLDB, pages 566–577, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Widom and S. Ceri. Active Database Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steffen Jurk
    • 1
  • Mira Balaban
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Databases and Information SystemsCottbus Technical University of BrandenburgCottbusGermany
  2. 2.Dept. of Information Systems EngineeringBen-Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations