A hierarchy of faithful set creation in pure OODB's

  • Jan Van den Bussche
  • Dirk Van Gucht
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 646)

Abstract

In a general, pure object-based setting, we consider the issue of creating objects which faithfully represent sets. Faithfulness means that no duplicates are generated, and is therefore an important notion, not only from a data modeling perspective, but also for efficiency reasons. Our main result is that, modulo one exception, the ability to create objects which faithfully represent sets whose cardinality is bounded by a fixed constant m, is strictly weaker than that for sets with cardinality bounded by m + 1. We thus establish a strictly increasing hierarchy.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. Abiteboul, P. Fischer, and H.-J. Schek, editors. Nested Relations and Complex Objects in Databases. Number 361 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Abiteboul and S. Grumbach. A rule-based langauge with functions and sets. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 16(1):1–30, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Abiteboul and P. Kanellakis. Object identity as a query language primitive. In Clifford et al. [9], pages 159–173.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A.V. Aho and J.D. Ullman. Universality of data retrieval languages. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 110–120, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    D. Bitton and D. DeWitt. Duplicate record elimination in large data files. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 8(2):255–265, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Beeri. A formal approach to object-oriented databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 5(4):353–382, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Chandra and D. Harel. Computable queries for relational database systems. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 21(2):156–178, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    A. Clark. Elements of Abstract Algebra. Dover Books on Advanced Mathematics. Dover, 1984.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Clifford, B. Lindsay, and D. Maier, editors. Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on the Management of Data, number 18:2 in SIGMOD Record. ACM Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Gyssens, J. Paredaens, and D. Van Gucht. A graph-oriented object database model. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 417–424. ACM Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Grumbach and V. Vianu. Playing games with objects. In S. Abiteboul and P.C. Kanellakis, editors, Third International Conference on Database Theory, Proceedings, number 470 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 25–38. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Hull and R. King. Semantic database modelling: Survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(3):201–260, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. Hull and J. Su. On accessing object-oriented databases: Expressive power, complexity, and restrictions. In Clifford et al. [9], pages 147–158.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    R. Hull and J. Su. On the expressive power of database queries with intermediate types. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43(1):219–237, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Hull. Relative information capacity of simple relational schemata. SIAM Journal on Computing, 15(3):856–886, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. Hull and M. Yoshikawa. ILOG: Declarative creation and manipulation of object identifiers. In D. McLeod, R. Sacks-Davis, and H. Schek, editors, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, Morgan Kaufmann, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    W. Kim and F.H. Lochovsky, editors. Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications. Frontier Series. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. Kifer, G. Lausen, and J. Wu. Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. Technical Report 90/14, Dept. Comp. Science, SUNY Stony Brook, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    G. Kuper. The Logical Data Model: A New Approach to Database Logic. Ph Dthesis, Stanford University, 1985.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    G. Kuper. Logic programming with sets. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 41(1):44–64, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    G. Kuper and M. Vardi. A new approach to database logic. In Proceedings of the Third ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 86–96. ACM Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. Kifer and J. Wu. A logic for object-oriented logic programming (Maier's O-logic revisited). In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 379–393. ACM Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    C. Lécluse, P. Richard, and F. Velez. O2, an object-oriented data model. In H. Boral and P.A. Larson, editors, 1988 Proceedings SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 424–433. ACM Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    D. Shipman. The functional data model and the data language DAPLEX. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 16(10):140–173, 1981.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    L.V. Saxton and D. Van Gucht. Implementation of relational queries with sets. Technical report.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    J. Van den Bussche and J. Paredaens. The expressive power of structured values in pure OODB's. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 291–299. ACM Press, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Van den Bussche
    • 1
  • Dirk Van Gucht
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. Math. & Camp. ScienceUniversity of Antwerp UIAWilrijkBelgium
  2. 2.Comp. Science Dept.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations