Accommodating integrity constraints during database design

  • Dimitris Plexousakis
  • John Mylopoulos
Database Design
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1057)

Abstract

We address the problem of maintaining the integrity of large knowledge bases using a compile-time transaction modification technique. The novelty of the approach lies in the adaptation of ideas from Artificial Intelligence (AI) planning research. Starting with the observation that solutions to the frame and ramification problems can be used during database transaction design time, we propose an integrity maintenance technique that modifies transaction specifications by incorporating into them conditions necessary of the constraints' satisfaction. Additions to the transactions' postconditions whose effect is to maintain the integrity constraints, are generated from a set of transaction specifications. Thus, the implications of constraints are realized by the transaction specifier and the effort of having to prove transaction safety is saved, since it is guaranteed by the correctness of the generation process.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Borgida, J. Mylopoulos, and R. Reiter. And nothing else changes: The Frame Problem in Procedure Specifications. In Proceedings of the 15th Int. Conference on Software Engineering, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Borgida, J. Mylopoulos, and R. Reiter. The Frame Problem in Procedure Specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1995. To appear.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Bry, H. Decker, and R. Manthey. A Uniform Approach to Constraint Satisfaction and Constraint Satisfiability in Deductive Databases. In Proceedings of the Int. Conference on Extedning Data Base Technology, pages 488–505, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving Production Rules for Constraint Maintenance. In VLDB-90, pages 566–577, 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Chomicki. History-less Checking of Dynamic Integrity Constraints. In 8th Int. Conference on Data Engineering, pages 557–564, Phoenix,AZ, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Finger. Exploiting Constraints in Design Synthesis. Technical Report STAN-CS-88-1204, Stanford University, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Florentin. Consistency Auditing of Databases. Computer Journal, 17(1):52–58, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Gardarin and M. Melkanoff. Proving Consistency of Database Transactions. In Proceedings VLDB '79, pages 291–298, 1979.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Ginsberg and D. Smith. Reasoning about Action I: A Possible Worlds Approach. In Matthew Ginsberg, editor, Readings in Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pages 433–463. Morgan Kauffmann, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Jeusfeld and M. Jarke. From Relational to Object-Oriented Integrity Simplification. In Proceedings of DOOD-91, pages 460–477, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Lawley, R. Topor, and M. Wallace. Using Weakest Preconditions to Simplify Integrity Constraint Checking. In Proceedings of the Australian Database Conference, pages 161–170, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. Lifschitz. Towards a Metatheory of Action. In Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 376–386, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Lin and R. Reiter. State Constraints Revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation — Special Issue on Actions and Processes, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    U. Lipeck. Transformation of Dynamic Integrity Constraints into Transaction Specifications. Theoretical Computer Science, 76:115–142, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Lloyd, E. Sonenberg, and R. Topor. Integrity Constraint Checking in Stratified Databases. Technical Report 86/5, Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne, 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Springer Verlag, 1991. Vol. 1: Specification.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. McCarthy. Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Mitchie, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis. Telos: Representing Knowledge about Information Systems. ACM TOIS, 8(4):325–362, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Mylopoulos, V. Chaudhri, D. Plexousakis, A. Shrufi, and T. Topaloglou. Building Knowledge Base Management Systems. The VLDB Journal, 1996. To appear.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J.-M. Nicolas. Logic for Improving Integrity Checking in Relational Databases. Acta Informatica, 18:227–253, 1982.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Pinto. Temporal Reasoning in the Situation Calculus. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Plexousakis. Integrity Constraint and Rule Maintenance in Temporal Deductive Knowledge Bases. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 146–157, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    D. Plexousakis. Semantical and Ontological Considerations in Telos: a Lanugage for Knowledge Representation. Computational Intelligence, 9(1):41–72, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Plexousakis. Compilation and Simplification of Temporal Integrity Constraints. In Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, pages 260–274, Athens, GR, September 1995.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Reiter. The Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: A Simple Solution (Sometimes) and a Completeness Model for Goal Regression. In V. Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and the Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 359–380. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. Schubert. Monotonic Solution to the Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: An Efficient Method for Worlds with Fully Specified Actions. In H. Kyberg, R. Loui, and G. Carlson, editors, Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pages 23–67. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Schuman and D. Pitt. Object-Oriented Subsystem Specification. In L. Meertens, editor, Program Specification and Transformation, pages 313–341. Elsevier Science, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    T. Sheard and D. Stemple. Automatic Verification of Database Transaction Safety. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 14(3):322–368, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Stemple, S. Mazumdar, and T. Sheard. On the Modes and Meaning of Feedback to Transaction Designers. In Proceedings of ACM-SIGMOD Int. Conference on the Management of Data, pages 374–386, San Francisco, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Stonebraker. Implementation of Integrity Constraints and Views by Query Modification. In Proceedings of ACM-SIGMOD Int. Conference on the Management of Data, pages 65–78, 1975.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Teniente, E. and Olivé, A.. Updating Knowledge Bases While Maintaining Their Consistency. The VLDB Journal, 4(2):193–241, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Plexousakis
    • 1
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computing and Information SciencesKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations