Structural issues in active rule systems

  • James Bailey
  • Guozhu Dong
  • Kotagiri Ramamohanarao
Contributed Papers Session 3: Active Databases
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1186)

Abstract

Active database systems enhance the functionality of traditional databases through the use of active rules or ‘triggers’. There is little consensus, though, on what components should be included in a rule system. In this paper, the expressive power of some simple active database rule systems is examined and the effect of choosing different features studied. Four important parameters of variation are presented, namely the rule language, the external query language, the meta rule language and the pending rule structure. We show that each of these is highly influential in determining the expressiveness of the rule system as a whole, and that an appreciation of them can serve as a basis for understanding the broader picture of system behaviour.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Baralis, S. Ceri, and S. Paraboschi. Improved rule analysis by means of triggering and activation graphs. In T. Sellis, editor, Rules in Database Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 985, pages 165–181. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving production rules for constraint maintenance. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 566–577, Brisbane, Australia, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving production rules for incremental view maintenance. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 577–589, Barcelona, Spain, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Chakravarthy and D. Mishra. Snoop: An expressive event specification language for active databases. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 14(1):1–26, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Collet, T. Coupaye, and T. Svensen. Naos: Efficient and modular reactive capabilities in an object oriented database system. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data bases, pages 132–143, Santiago, Chile, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U. Dayal, M. Hsu, and R. Ladin. Organizing long running activities with triggers and transactions. In Proceedings of the ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on the Management of Data, pages 204–214, Atlantic City, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U. Dayal et al.. The HiPAC project: Combining active databases and timing constraints. ACM SIGMOD Record, 17(1):51–70, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Hull and D. Jacobs. Language constructs for programming active databases. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 455–468, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. V. Jagadish, A. O. Mendelzon, and I. S. Mumick. Managing rule conflicts in an active database. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Montreal, Canada, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Picouet and V. Vianu. Semantics and expressiveness issues in active databases. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 126–138, San Jose, California, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Post. Finite combinatory processes-formulation I. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1:103–105, 1936.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Simon and C. de Maindreville. Deciding whether a production rule is relational computable. In Proceedings of The International Conference on Database Theory, pages 205–222, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Bailey
    • 1
  • Guozhu Dong
    • 1
  • Kotagiri Ramamohanarao
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations