How to tackle schema validation by view updating

Database Design
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1057)

Abstract

Schema validation and view updating are database engineering problems which seem to differ significantly. Hence, for solving them, significantly different approaches are taken, usually. However, one of the contributions of this paper is: We show that any sound method for view updating can effectively be used also for validating schema specifications. We consider typical schema validation tasks such as checking schema satisfiability, liveliness of a predicate, reachability of partially specified states and redundancy of integrity constraint specifications, and we show how, with any sound method for view updating, these tasks can be tackled in a uniform way. For illustrating our point, we shortly recapitulate a concrete method for view updating and apply it to tackle these tasks. We emphasize that our general approach is independent of any particular method for view updating. Other contributions consists in refined concepts of schema satisfiability and integrity redundance. Both can be expressed in related terms of liveliness and reachability, and yield results that compare advantageously to what has been proposed so far, in the literature

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ABC82]
    W.R. Adrion, M.A. Branstad, J.C. Cherniavsky: Validation, Verification and Testing of Computer Software, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 14, No. 2, 159–192, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. [BDM88]
    F. Bry, H. Decker, R. Manthey: A uniform approach to constraint satisfaction and constraint satisfiability in deductive databases, in J. Schmidt et al (eds): Proc. 1 st EDBT, 488–505, Springer LNCS 303, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [BM86]
    F. Bry, R. Manthey: Checking consistency of database constraints: a logical basis. Proc. Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases '86, 13–20, Kyoto, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [BR86]
    F. Bancilhon, R. Ramakrishnan: An amateur's introduction to recursive query processing strategies, Proc. SIGMOD '86, 16–152, ACM Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. [Bub86]
    J.A. Bubenko: Information system methodologies — A research review, in T.W. Olle et al (eds), Information System Design Methodologies: Improving the Practice, 289–235, North-Holland, 1986.Google Scholar
  6. [CDM93]
    J.C. Casamayor, H. Decker, F. Marqués: A mechanism for verification of knowledge base schema specifications, in P. Meseguer (ed), Proc. European Sympos. Validation and Verification of Knowledge-based Systems, 103–115, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. [CO92]
    D. Costal, A. Olive: A Method for Reasoning about Deductive Conceptual Models of Information Systems, Proc. Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'92), 612–631, 1992.Google Scholar
  8. [Dec89]
    H. Decker: The range form of databases and queries, or: How to avoid floundering, in J. Retti, K. Leidlmair (eds), Proc. 5th ÖGAI, 114–123, Springer Informatik-Fachberichte 208, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [GMN84]
    H. Gallaire, J. Minker, J.M. Nicolas: Logic and databases: A deductive approach, Computing Surveys 16, 153–185, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. [GSUW94]
    A. Gupta, Y. Sagiv, J.D. Ullman, J. Widom: Constraint checking with partial information, Proc. 13th poDS, 45–55, ACM Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [IKH92]
    K. Inoue, M. Koshimura, R. Hasegawa: Embedding negation as failure into a model generation theorem prover, Proc. 11th CADE, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. [Kun84]
    C.H. Kung: A Temporal Framework for Information Systems Specifications and Verification, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Trondheim, Norway, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. [LMSS93]
    A. Levy, I.S. Mumick, Y. Sagiv, O. Shmueli: Equivalence, query-reachability, and satisfiability in Datalog extensions, Proc. 12th PoDS, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. [LS95]
    A. Levy, Y. Sagiv: Semantic Query Optimization in Datalog Programs, Proc. 14th PoDS, 163–173, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. [Llo87]
    J.W. Lloyd: Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [Min82]
    J. Minker: On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption, Proc. 6th Int'l Conf. Automated Deduction, CADE '82, 292–308, Springer LNCS 138, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. [Oli91]
    Olivé, A.: Integrity Checking in Deductive Databases, Proc. 17th VLDB Conference, 513–523, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. [OS95]
    A.Olivé, M.R. Sancho: A Method for Explaining the Behaviour of Conceptual Models. Proc. Int. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE'95), 12–25, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [TO92]
    E. Teniente, A. Olivé: The Events Method for View Updating in Deductive Databases, Proc. Int. Conf. on Extending Database Technology (EDBT'92), 245–260, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. [TO95]
    E. Teniente, A. Olivé: Updating Knowledge Bases while Maintaining their Consistency, The VLDB Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 193–241, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. [TU95]
    E. Teniente, T. Urpi: A Common Framework for Classifying and Specifying Deductive Database Updating Problems, Proc. 11th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'95), 173–183, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. [U1188]
    J.D. Ullman: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, volumes 1, 2, Computer Science Press, 1988, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. [UO92]
    T. Urpí, A. Olivé: A Method for Change Computation in Deductive Databases, Proc. 18th VLDB Conference, 225–237, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. [VF85]
    P.A.S. Veloso, A.L. Furtado: Towards simpler and yet more complete formal specifications, Proc. IFIP Working Conf. Theoretical and Formal Aspects of Information Systems, 175–189, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hendrik Decker 
    • 1
  • Ernest Teniente 
    • 1
  • Toni Urpi 
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultat d'Informàtica carrerUniversitat Politècnica de Catalunya LSIBarcelona

Personalised recommendations