Composite events in Chimera

  • Rosa Meo
  • Giuseppe Psaila
  • Stefano Ceri
Active Databases
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1057)

Abstract

In this paper, we extend event types supported by Chimera, an active object-oriented database system. Chimera rules currently support disjunctive expressions of set-oriented, elementary event types; our proposal introduces instance-oriented event types, arbitrary boolean expressions (including negation), and precedence operators. Thus, we introduce a new event calculus, whose distinguishing feature is to support a minimal set of orthogonal operators which can be arbitrarily composed. We use event calculus to determine when rules are triggered; this is a change of each rule's internal status which makes it suitable for being considered by the rule selection mechanism.

The proposed extensions do not affect the way in which rules are processed after their triggering; therefore, this proposal is continuously evolving the syntax and semantics of Chimera in the dimension of event composition, without compromising its other semantic features. For this reason, we believe that the proposed approach can be similarly applied for extending the event language of other active database systems currently supporting simple events or their disjunction.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    H. Branding, A. Buchmann, T. Kudrass, and J. Zimmermann. Rules in an open system: The reach rule system. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, pages 127–142, Edimburgh, August 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Branding, A. Buchmann, T. Kudrass, and J. Zimmermann. Rules in an open system: The reach rule system. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, pages 111–125, Edimburgh, August 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Castangia, G. Guerrini, D. Montesi, and G. Rodriguez. Design and implementation for the active rule language of chimera. In DEXA-95 6th international Workshop and Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications, London, UK, September 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Ceri, P. Fraternali, S. Paraboschi, and L. Tanca. Active rule management in chimera. In [23].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Ceri and R. Manthey. Consolidated specification of chimera. Technical Report IDEA DE.2P.006.01, November 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Chakravarthy, E. Anwar, L Maugis, and D. Mishra. Design of sentinel: an object-oriented dbms with event-based rules. Information and Software Technology, 36(9), 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Chakravarthy, V. Krishnaprasad, E. Anwar, and S. K. Kim. Composite events for active databases: Semantics, context and detection. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 606–617, Santiago, Chile, September 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    U. Dayal, A. P. Buchmann, and S. Chakravarthy. The hipac project. In [23].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U. Dayal, A. P, Buchmann, and D. R. McCarthy. Rules are objects too: A knowledge model for an active object-oriented database system. In K. R. Dittrich, editor, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Object-Oriented Databases. Springer-Verlag, 1988. LNCS 334.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Fraternali and L. Tanca. A structured approach for the definition of the semantics of active databases. June 1995. To appear on ACM-TODS.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Gatziu and K. R. Dittrich. Events in an active object-oriented database system. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, pages 23–39, Edimburgh, August 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. H. Gehani and H. V. Jagadish. Ode as an active database: Constraints and triggers. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 327–336, Barcelona, Spain, September 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. H. Gehani, H. V. Jagadish, and O. Shmueli. Composite event specification in active databases: Model and implementation. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 327–338, Vancouver, Canada, 1992. British Columbia.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    N. H. Gehani, H. V. Jagadish, and O. Shmueli. Event specification in an active object-oriented database. In 1992 ACM SIGMOD, pages 81–90, San Diego, CA, USA, May 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. N. Hanson. Rule condition testing and action execution in ariel. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 327–336, Barcelona, Spain, September 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. N. Hanson, M. Chaabouni, C-H. Kim, and Y-W. Wang. A predicate matching algorithm for database rule systems. ACM Journal, pages 271–280, May 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO-OSI. SQL3 Document X3H2-94-080 and SOU-003, ISO-ANSI Working Draft, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Maiocchi and B. Pernici. Temporal data management systems: A comparative view. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 3(4):504–524, December 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Naqvi and M. T. Ibrahim. Rule and knowledge management in an active database system. In [23].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. W. Paton, O. Diaz, M. H. Williams, J. Campin, A. Dinn, and A. Jaime. Dimensions of active behaviour. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, pages 40–57, Edimburgh, August 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Stonebraker, A. Jhingran, J. Goh, and S. Potamios. On rules, procedures, chaching, and views in data base systems. In Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Int. Conference, pages 281–290, Atlantic City, June 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Teisseire, P. Poncelet, and R. Cicchetti. Towards event-driven modelling for database design. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 327–336, Santiago, Chile, September 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Widom and S. Ceri. Active Database Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Matteo, California, August 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Widom, R. J. Cohrane, and B. G. Lindsay. Implementing set-oriented production rules as an extension od starburst. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 275–285, Barcelona, Spain, September 1991.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Widom and S. J. Finkelstein. Set-oriented production rules in relational database systems. In Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Int. Conference, pages 250–270, Atlantic City, June 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosa Meo
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Psaila
    • 1
  • Stefano Ceri
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Automatica e InformaticaPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Elettronica e InformazionePolitecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations