Transformation of dynamic integrity constraints into transaction specifications

  • Udo W. Lipeck
Dynamic Aspects Of Databases
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 326)

Abstract

Dynamic database behaviour can be specified by dynamic integrity constraints, which determine admissible sequences of database states, and by transaction specifications, which induce executable sequences. Constraints are expressed by formulae of temporal logic, whereas transactions are defined by pre/postconditions in predicate logic. This paper presents concepts and rules for transforming dynamic constraints into transaction specifications in order to prepare integrity monitoring by transactions. At first, such transition graphs must be constructed from temporal formulae that have paths corresponding to admissible sequences. Then these graphs are utilized to refine and to simplify pre/postconditions systematically, so that every executable state sequence becomes admissible, too.

Keywords

integrity dynamic constraints temporal logic transition graphs transactions pre/postconditions monitoring constraint simplification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ADBT84]
    Advances in Database Theory, Vol. II (H.Gallaire et al., eds.), Plenum Press, 1984Google Scholar
  2. [BrMS84]
    Brodie,M.L./Mylopoulos,J./Schmidt,J.W(eds.): On Conceptual Modelling. Springer, 1984Google Scholar
  3. [CaCF82]
    Castilho,J.M.V.de/ Casanova,M.A./ Furtado,A.L.: A Temporal Framework for Database Specifications. VLDB 1982, 280–291Google Scholar
  4. [CaF84]
    Casanova,M.A./Furtado,A.L.: On the Description of Database Transition Constraints Using Temporal Languages. In [ADBT84], 211–236Google Scholar
  5. [CaS87]
    Carmo,J./Sernadas,A.: A Temporal Logic Framework for a Layered Approach to Systems Specification and Verification In: [TAIS87], 31–46Google Scholar
  6. [CaVF84]
    Casanova,M.A./Veloso,P.A.S./Furtado,A.L.: Formal Database Specification — An Eclectic Perspective. PODS 1984, 110–118Google Scholar
  7. [FeL87]
    Feng,D.S./ Lipeck,U.W.: Monitoring Temporal Formulae Deterministically (in German). Informatik-Bericht Nr. 87-06, Techn. Univ. Braunschweig 1987Google Scholar
  8. [FiS86]
    Fiadeiro, J./Sernadas, A.: The INFOLOG Linear Tense Propositional Logic of Events and Transactions. Information Systems 11 (1986), 61–85Google Scholar
  9. [FuSC81]
    Furtado, A.L./Santos, C.S.dos/Castilho, J.M.V.de: Dynamic Modelling of a Simple Existence Constraint. Information Systems 6 (1981), 73–80Google Scholar
  10. [GaM79]
    Gardarin,G./Melkanoff,M.: Proving Consistency of Database Transactions. VLDB 1979, 291–298Google Scholar
  11. [HeMN84]
    Henschen,L.J./McCune,W.W./Naqvi,S.A.: Compiling Constraint Checking Programs from First-Order Formulas. In: [ADBT84], 145–169Google Scholar
  12. [Ku84]
    Kung,C.H.: A Temporal Framework for Database Specification and Verification. VLDB 1984, 91–99Google Scholar
  13. [Li86]
    Lipeck,U.W.: Stepwise Specification of Dynamic Database Behaviour. SIGMOD 1986, 387–397Google Scholar
  14. [Li87]
    Lipeck,U.W.: On Dynamic Integrity of Databases: Fundamentals of Specification and Monitoring (in German). Habilitation Thesis, Informatics, Techn. Univ. Braunschweig, 1987Google Scholar
  15. [LiEG85]
    Lipeck,U.W./Ehrich,H.-D./Gogolla,M.: Specifying Admissibility of Dynamic Database Behaviour Using Temporal Logic. In: [TFAIS85], 145–157Google Scholar
  16. [LiS87]
    Lipeck, U.W./Saake, G.: Monitoring Dynamic Integrity Constraints Based on Temporal Logic. Information Systems 12 (1987), 255–269Google Scholar
  17. [MaW84]
    Manna, Z./Wolper, P.: Synthesis of Communicating Processes from Temporal Logic Specifications. ACM TOPLAS 6 (1984), 68–93Google Scholar
  18. [Ni82]
    Nicolas, J.-M.: Logic for Improving Integrity Checking in Relational Data Bases. Acta Informatica 18 (1982), 227–253Google Scholar
  19. [SaL87]
    Saake,G./Lipeck,U.W.: Foundations of Temporal Integrity Monitoring. In: [TAIS87], 235–249Google Scholar
  20. [Se80]
    Sernadas, A.: Temporal Aspects of Logical Procedure Definition. Inf.Systems 5(1980), 167–187Google Scholar
  21. [ShS85]
    Sheard,T./Stemple,D.: Coping with Complexity in Automated Reasoning about Database Systems. VLDB 1985, 426–435Google Scholar
  22. [StS84]
    Stemple,D./Sheard,T.: Specification and Verification of Abstract Database Types. PODS 1984, 248–257Google Scholar
  23. [TAIS87]
    Proc. IFIP Work. Conf. on Temporal Aspects in Information Systems 1987 (C.Rolland et al., eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam 1988Google Scholar
  24. [TFAIS85]
    Proc. IFIP Work. Conf. on Theoretical and Formal Aspects of Information Systems (A.Sernadas et al., eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam 1985Google Scholar
  25. [VeCF81]
    Veloso,P.A.S./Castilho,J.M.V.de/Furtado,A.L.: Systematic Derivation of Complementary Specifications. VLDB 1981, 409–421Google Scholar
  26. [VeF85]
    Veloso,P.A.S./Furtado,A.L.: Towards Simpler and Yet Complete Formal Specifications. In: [TFAIS85], 175–189Google Scholar
  27. [WaS81]
    Walker,A./Salveter,S.C.: Automatic Modification of Transactions to Preserve Data Base Integrity. Techn.Report 81/026, Comp. Science, State Univ. of New York, Stony Brook 1981Google Scholar
  28. [Wo83]
    Wolper, P.: Temporal Logic Can Be More Expressive. Inform.and Control 56 (1983), 72–99Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Udo W. Lipeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Informatik, Abteilung DatenbankenTechnische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigFed. Rep. Germany

Personalised recommendations