Context-driven information base update

  • Panos Constantopoulos
  • Yannis Tzitzikas
Novel Architectures and Information Bases
First Online:
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1080)

Abstract

A major issue in information management is information update. In this paper we address this problem within the framework of a fairly general information model incorporating notions of context as a way to control and drive the update operations. We introduce three kinds of contexts: role, task and focus context. Role context relates users with update tasks, task context restricts the scope of updates and focus context is used to guide the user at run-time. In particular, we focus on issues regarding the expressive power of contexts, the consistency of context declarations with the contents of the information base, flexibility and brevity of context declaration and management and utilization of contexts. An implementation is proposed as part of a specific system, the Semantic Index System.

Keywords

Task Context Metadata Management Declaration Type Context Definition Virtual Class 
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.
    Rakesh Agrawal and Linda G. DeMichiel. “Type Derivation Using the Projection Operation”. Information Systems, 19(1):55–68, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Attardi and M. Simi. “Completeness and Consistency of OMEGA, A Logic for Knowledge Representation”. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Z. Bellahsene. “An Active Meta-Model for Knowledge Evolution in an Object-oriented Database”. Technical report. LIRMM UMR CNRS/Montpellier II, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Z. Bellahsene. “The Point of View Notion for Defining and Updating Views in an Object-oriented Database”. Technical report. LIRMM UMR CNRS/Montpellier II, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Philip A. Bernstein and Umeshwar Dayal. “An Overview of Repository Technology”. In Proceedings of the 20th VLDB Conference, pages 705–713, Santiago, Chile, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Borras, J.C. Mamou, D. Plateau, B. Poyet, and D. Tallot. “Building User Interfaces for Database Applications: The O2 experience”. SIGMOD RECORD, 21(1):32–38, March 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos, and J. Schmidt, editors. “On Conceptual Modeling: Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, Databases and Programming Languages”. Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Panos Constantopoulos. “Cultural Documentation: The CLIO System”. Technical Report 115, Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, January 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panos Constantopoulos and Martin Doerr. “Component Classification in the Software Information Base”. in O.Nierstrasz and D.Tsichritzis, eds.,Object-Oriented Software Composition, Prentice-Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Panos Constantopoulos and Martin Doerr. “The Semantic Index System: A brief presentation”. Institute of Computer Science Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas, May 1994. (http://www.ics.forth.gr/proj/isst/Systems/sis/).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panos Constantopoulos, Manos Theodorakis, and Yannis Tzitzikas. “Developing Hypermedia Over an Information Repository”. to appear in the 2nd Workshop on Open Hypermedia Systems at Hypertext'96, Washington, DC, USA,March 16–20, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oscar Diaz and Norman W. Paton. “Extending ODBMS Using Metaclasses”. IEEE Software, pages 40–47, May 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belinda B. Flynn and David Maier. “Supporting Display Generation for Complex Database Objects”. SIGMOD RECORD, 21(1):18–24, March 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Andreas Geppert, Stefan Scherrer, and Klaus R. Dittrich. “Derived Types and Subschemas: Towards Better Support for Logical Data Independence in Object-Oriented Data Models”. Technical Report 93.27, Institut für Informatik, Universität Zürich, June 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Hudson and R. King. “Semantic Feedback in the Higgens UIMS”. IEEE Transactions of Sortware Engineering, August 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richard Hull and Roger King. “Semantic Database Modeling”. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(3):202–260, September 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michel Kuntz. “The Gist of GIUKU. Graphical Interactive Intelligent Utilities for Knowledgeable Users of Data Base Systems”. SIGMOD RECORD, 21(1):58–64, March 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leo Mark and Nick Roussopoulos. “Metadata Management”. IEEE Computer, pages 26–36, December 1986.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Missikoff and M. Scholl. “An Algorithm for Insertion into a Lattice: Application to Type Classification”. In Proceedings 3nd International Conference on Foundations of Data Organisation and Algorithms — FODO, pages 64–82, Paris, June 1989. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    John Mylopoulos, Alex Borgida, Matthias Jarke, and Manolis Koubarakis. “Telos: Representing Knowledge about Information Systems”. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 8(4), October 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    John Mylopoulos and Renate Motschnig-Pitric. “Partitioning Information Bases with Contexts”. In Proceedings of Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, CoopIS-95, pages 44–54, Vienna, Austria, May 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fausto Rabitti, Elisa Bertino, Won Kim, and Darrell Woelk. “A Model of Authorization for Next-Generation Database Systems”. ACM Transactions on Object Oriented Database Systems-TODS, 16(1), March 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marc H. Scholl, Cristian Laasch, and Markus Tresch. “Updatable Views in Object-Oriented Databases”. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, pages 189–207, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lokendra Shastri. “Default Reasoning in Semantic Networks: A Formalization of Recognition and Inheritance ”. Artificial Intelligence, 39:283–355, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gerhard Steinke. “Task-Based Security for Knowledge Base Systems”. PhD thesis, University of Passau, July 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manos Theodorakis. “Context-based Naming in Semantic Networks”. to appear in the 3rd Doctoral Consortium on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 20–21, 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Manos Theodorakis. “Name Scope in Semantic Data Models”. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science — University of Crete, September 1995. (in Greek).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M.B. Thuraisingham. “Mandatory Security in Object-Oriented Database Systems”. In Proceedings of Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications — OOPSLA, pages 203–210, October 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    David Touretzky, John Horty, and Richmond Thomason. “A Clash of Intuitions: The Current State of Nonmonotonic Multiple Inheritance Systems”. In Proceedings of the 10th IJCAI, Milan, Italy, pages 476–482, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panos Constantopoulos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yannis Tzitzikas
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CreteGreece
  2. 2.Foundation for Research and TechnologyInstitute of Computer ScienceHellas

Personalised recommendations