Subsumption for complex object data models

  • Domenico Beneventano
  • Sonia Bergamaschi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 646)

Abstract

We adopt a formalism, similar to terminological logic languages developed in AI knowledge representation systems, to express the semantics of complex objects data models. Two main extensions are proposed with respect to previous proposed models: the conjunction operator, which permits the expression multiple inheritance between types (classes) as a semantic property and the introduction in the schema of derived (classes), similar to views. These extensions, together with the adoption of suitable semantics able for dealing with cyclic descriptions, allow for the automatic placement of classes in a specialization hierarchy. Mapping schemata to nondeterministic finite automata we face and solve interesting problems like detection of emptiness of a classextension and computation of a specialization ordering for the greatest, least and descriptive semantics. As queries can be expressed as derived classes these results also apply to intentional query answering and query validation.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ACCT90]
    Atzeni, P., Cacace, F., Ceri, S., and Tanca L. The LOGIDATA+ model. Technical Report 5/20, CNR, Progetto Finalizzato Sistemi Informatica e Calcolo Parallelo, Sottoprogetto 5, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. [AG88]
    Abiteboul, S. and Grumbach, S. Col: a logic based language for complex objects. In EDBT'88 International Conference on Extending Database Technology, pages 271–293, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [AK89]
    Abiteboul, S. and Kanellakis, P. C. Object Identity as a Query Language Primitive. in: Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Mangement of Data, pages 159–173, Portland, Oreg. (1989).Google Scholar
  4. [AH87]
    Abiteboul, S. and Hull, R. B. Ifo: a formal semantic data model. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 12, 4 (1987), 297–314.Google Scholar
  5. [AitK86]
    Aït-Kaci, H. Type Subsumption as a Model of Computation. In Kerschberg, L., editor, First International Workshop on Expert Database Systems, Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park, Cal., 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [Baa90]
    Baader, F. Terminological cycles in KL-ONE-based KR-languages. In Proceedings of the 8th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Mass., 1990.Google Scholar
  7. [Bee90]
    Beeri, C. A formal approach to object-oriented database. In Data & Knowledge Engineering, pages 353–382, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [BGN89]
    Beck, H. W., Gala, S. K., and Navathe, S. B. Classification as a query processing technique in the CANDIDE semantic data model. In Proceedings of the International Data Engineering Conference, IEEE, pages 572–581, Los Angeles, Cal., 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [BCST88]
    Bergamaschi, S., Cavedoni, L. Sartori, C., and Tiberio, P. On taxonomical reasoning in E/R environments. In Batini, C., editor, Entity Relationship Approach, pages 443–453, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [BN91]
    Bergamaschi, S., and Nebel, B. Theoretical fondations of complex object data models Technical Report 5/91, CNR, Progetto Finalizzato Sistemi Informatica e Calcolo Parallelo, Sottoprogetto 5, January 1992.Google Scholar
  11. [BS91]
    Bergamaschi, S., and Sartori, C. On taxonomical reasoning in conceptual design. To appear in ACM Transactions on Database Systems, also available as Technical Report 78, CIOC-CNR, Bologna, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [BBMR89]
    Borgida, A.,Brachman, R, J., McGuinness, D. L. and Resnick, L. A. CLASSIC: a structural data model for objects, in: Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Mangement of Data, pages 59–67, Portland, Oreg. (1989).Google Scholar
  13. [BrSc85]
    Brachman, R. J. and Schmölze, J. G. An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system, Cognitive Science 9, 2 (1985), 171–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [CCCTZ90]
    Cacace, F., Ceri, S., Crespi-Reghizzi, S., Tanca, L., and Zicari, R. Integrating object-oriented data modeling with rule-based programming paradigm. In Symposium on Principles of database Systems, ACM SIGMOD, pages 225–236.Google Scholar
  15. [Card84]
    Cardelli, L. A. Semantics of multiple inheritance. In Semantics of Data Types, pages 51–67, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. [GJ79]
    Garey, M. R. and Johnson, D. S. Computers and Intractability, Freeman, San Francisco, Cal., 1979.Google Scholar
  17. [LP81]
    Lewis, H. R. and Papadimitriou, C. H. Elements of the Theory of Computation, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1981.Google Scholar
  18. [LR89a]
    Lécluse, C. and Richard, P. The O2 Data Model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. [LR89b]
    Lécluse, C. and Richard, P. Modeling complex structures in object-oriented databases. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database-Systems, pages 360–367, March 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [Llo87]
    Lloyd, J.W. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. [Neb90]
    Nebel, B. Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable. Artificial Intelligence, 43:235–249, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. [Neb91]
    Nebel, B. Terminological cycles: Semantics and computational properties. In J. Sowa, editor, Principles of Semantic Networks. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Cal., 1991.Google Scholar
  23. [Sch86]
    Schmidt, D.A. Denotational Semantics: A Methodology for Language Development. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1986.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenico Beneventano
    • 1
  • Sonia Bergamaschi
    • 1
  1. 1.CIOC-CNRBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations