Correct schema transformations

  • Xiaolei Qian
Design Tools
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1057)

Abstract

We develop a formal basis of correct schema transformations. Schemas are formalized as abstract data types, and correct schema transformations are formalized as information-preserving signature interpretations. Our formalism captures transformations of all schema components, making it possible to transform uniformly constraints and queries along with structures. In addition, our formalism captures schema transformations between different data models as easily as those within the same data model. Compared with Hull's notion of relative information capacity, our notion of information preservation captures more schema transformations that are natural, and fewer schema transformations that are unnatural. Our work lays the foundation of a transformational framework of schema manipulations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abiteboul and R. Hull. Restructuring hierarchical database objects. Theoretical Computer Science, 62:3–38, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Bar-Hillel and R. Carnap. An outline of a theory of semantic information. In Y. Bar-Hillel, editor, Language and Information, chapter 15, pages 221–274. Addison-Wesley, 1964.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. B. Navathe. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4):323–364, December 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Beeri. Theoretical foundations for OODB's — a personal perspective. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 14(2):8–12, June 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Beeri. New data models and languages — the challenge. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 1–15, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Buneman, S. Davidson, and A. Kosky. Theoretical aspects of schema merging. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Extending Database Technology, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. A. Casanova, L. Tucherman, A. L. Furtado, and A. P. Braga. Optimization of relational schemas containing inclusion dependencies. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 317–325, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. A. Casanova and V. M. P. Vidal. Towards a sound view integration methodology. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 36–47, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. B. Enderton. A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Goguen and J. Meseguer. Order-sorted algebra I: Equational deduction for multiple inheritance, overloading, exceptions and partial operations. Theoretical Computer Science, 105:217–273, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Hull. Relative information capacity of simple relational database schemata. SIAM Journal of Computing, 15(3):856–886, August 1986.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Hull and C. K. Yap. The format model: A theory of database organization. Journal of the ACM, 31(3):518–537, July 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Klug. Calculating constraints on relational expressions. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 5(3):260–290, September 1980.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. M. Markowitz and A. Shoshani. Representing extended entity-relationship structures in relational databases: A modular approach. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 17(3):423–464, September 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. J. Miller, Y. E. Ioannidis, and R. Ramakrishnan. Schema equivalence in heterogeneous systems: Bridging theory and practice. Information Systems, 19(1):3–32, January 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    X. Qian. Correct schema transformations. Technical Report SRI-CSL-95-08, Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, July 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Rosenthal and D. Reiner. Tools and transformations—rigorous and otherwise-for practical database design. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 19(2):167–211, June 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S. Spaccapietra and C. Parent. View integration: A step forward in solving structural conflicts. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 6(2):258–274, April 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Tsichritzis and F. Lochovsky. Data Models. Prentice-Hall, 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge Base Systems, volume 1. Computer Science Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    V. M. P. Vidal and M. Winslett. Preserving update semantics in schema integration. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pages 263–271, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Wirsing. Algebraic specification. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science. Vol. B: Formal Models and Semantics, chapter 13, pages 675–788. MIT Press/Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaolei Qian
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science LaboratorySRI InternationalUSA

Personalised recommendations