Advertisement

On the Consistency of Int-cardinality Constraints

  • Sven Hartmann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1507)

Abstract

In the entity-relationship model, cardinality constraints are frequently used to specify dependencies between entities and relationships. They impose lower and upper bounds on the cardinality of relationships an instance of a fixed type may participate in.

However, for certain applications it is not enough to prescibe only bounds, but it is necessary to specify the exact set of permitted cardinalities. This leads to the concept of int-cardinality constraints as proposed by Thalheim [14]. Different from ordinary cardinality constraints this concept allows gaps in the sets of permitted cardinalities. Our objective is to investigate the consistency of a set of int-cardinality constraints for a database scheme, i.e. the question whether there exists a fully-populated database instance satisfying all the given int-cardinality constraints.

Keywords

Integrity Constraint Relationship Type Database Scheme Admissible Function Strong Consistency 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Buchmann, A.P., Carrera, R.S., Vazquez-Galindo, M.A.: A generalized constraint and exception handler for an object-oriented CAD-DBMS. In: IEEE conf., pp. 38–49 (1986)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, P.: The Entity-Relationship Model: Towards a unified view of data. ACM TODS 1(1), 9–36 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, P., Knoell, H.-D.: Der Entity-Relationship-Ansatz zum logischen Systementwurf. BI-Wissenschaftsverlag, Mannheim (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engel, K., Hartmann, S.: Constructing realizers of semantic entity relationship schemes, Preprint 95/3, Universität Rostock (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gondran, M., Minoux, N.: Graphs and algorithms. Wiley, New York (1984)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartmann, S.: Graph-theoretic methods to construct entity-relationship databases. In: Nagl, M. (ed.) WG 1995. LNCS, vol. 1017, pp. 131–145. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartmann, S.: Über die Charakterisierung und Konstruktion von Entity- Relationship-Datenbanken mit Kardinalitätsbedingungen, Ph.D. thesis, Universit ät Rostock (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartmann, S.: Int-cardinality constraints in data modeling, Preprint, Universität Rostock (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lenzerini, M., Nobili, P.: On the satis_ability of dependency constraints in Entity-Relationship schemata. Information Systems 15, 453–461 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maier, D.: The theory of relational databases. Computer Science Press, Rockville (1983)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paredaens, J., de Bra, P., Gyssens, M., van Gucht, D.: The structure of the relational database model. Springer, Berlin (1989)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thalheim, B.: Fundamentals of cardinality constraints. In: Pernul, G., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ER 1992. LNCS, vol. 645, pp. 7–23. Springer, Heidelberg (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thalheim, B.: A survey on Database Constraints, Reihe Informatik I-8, Universität Cottbus (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thalheim, B.: Fundamentals of Entity-Relationship Models. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sven Hartmann
    • 1
  1. 1.FB MathematikUniversität RostockRostockGermany

Personalised recommendations