Supporting and maintaining derivations: A declarative active approach active approach
Derivations in object-oriented databases are supported currently by means of imperative methods or by using deductive or even active rules. As imperative languages are difficult to analyze in order to extract dependencies, derivations are never maintaine and attributes are calculated each time they are requested. Deductive rules, inherited from relational model, are a declarative manner to express derivations, but they do not provide a maintenance mechanism. Active rules can be used to maintain derivations, but they are event-oriented whereas derivations are naturally data-oriented. We propose to join the advantages of both the declarative expression of the deductive approach and the automatic maintenance of the active approach. We aim at defining a declarative language to express mono-valued, multi-valued and recursive derivations in an object-oriented database context, and maintaining these derivations using a dependency graph.
KeywordsDependency Graph Object Level Attribute Parent Reference Node Active Rule
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.A. Aiken, J. M. Hellerstein, J. Widom: Static Analysis Techniques for Detecting the Behaviour of Active Rules. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, Vol.20, No. 1, March 1995.Google Scholar
- 2.F. Cacace, S. Ceri, S. Crespi-Reghizzi, L. Tanca, R. Zicari: Integrating Object-Oriented Data Modeling with a Rule-Based programming paradigm. Proceeding of the ACM Conference on the Management of Data (SIGMOD), 225–236, Atlantic city, May 1990.Google Scholar
- 3.P. Dechamboux and C. Roncancio: Peplom: an Object Oriented Database Programming Language Extended with Deductive Capabilities. Database and Expert Systems Applications DEXA-94, LNCS (856), 2–14, September 1994.Google Scholar
- 4.M. S. Desouki and M. Simonet: Deductive and Active Processing in Database and Knowledge Base Systems. Proc. of The Second International Baltic Workshop on DB and IS, Workshops in Computing Series by Springer, Estonia, Talinn, June 1996.Google Scholar
- 5.M. S. Desouki, A. Simonet, and M. Simonet: Processing Deductions in an Active Fashion. Proc. of the 7th Int. DEXA Workshop, 23–29, Zurich, September 1996.Google Scholar
- 6.K.R. Dittrich, S. Gatziu, A. Geppert: The Active Database Management System Manifesto: A Rulebase of ADBMS Features. Proc. of the 2nd International Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, RIDS '95, Athens, September 1995.Google Scholar
- 7.O. Etzion, PARDES A Data-Driven Oriented Active Database Model. SIGMOD RECORD, Vol. 22, No. 1, March 1993.Google Scholar
- 8.G. Gardarin and E. Simon: Les systèmes de gestion de bases de données déductives. Technique et Science Informatiques, vol 6, 1987.Google Scholar
- 9.G. Gottlob, G. Moerkotte, and V. S. Subrahmanian: The PARK Semantics for Active Rules. Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. on EDBT, LNCS 1057, March 1996.Google Scholar
- 10.J.W. Lloyd: Practical advantages of declarative programming. In Proc. of the Joint Conference on Declarative Programming, GULPRODE'94, 1994.Google Scholar
- 11.J. D. Ullman: A Comparison of Deductive an Object Oriented Database Systems. Deductive and Object Oriented Database DOOD'91, eds. C.Delobel, M. Kifer, Y. Masunaga, 263–277. LNCS 566, 1991.Google Scholar
- 12.T. Winograd. Frame Representation and the Declarative Procedural Controversy. Reading in knowledge representation, 357–370, edited by Brachman and Levesque, Morgan Kaufman publisher, California, 1985.Google Scholar