Advertisement

Semantics of database transformations

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1358)

Abstract

Database transformations arise in many different settings including database integration, evolution of database systems, and implementing user views and data-entry tools. This paper surveys approaches that have been taken to problems in these settings, assesses their strengths and weaknesses, and develops requirements on a formal model for specifying and implementing database transformations.

We also consider the problem of insuring the correctness of database transformations. In particular, we demonstrate that the usefulness of correctness conditions such as information preservation is hindered by the interactions of transformations and database constraints, and the limited expressive power of established database constraint languages. We conclude that more general notions of correctness are required, and that there is a need for a uniform formalism for expressing both database transformations and constraints, and reasoning about their interactions.

Finally we introduce WOL, a declarative language for specifying and implementing database transformations and constraints. We briefly describe the WOL language and its semantics, and argue that it addresses many of the requirements on a formalism for dealing with general database transformations.

Keywords

Object Identity European City Transformation Program Transformation Language Source Database 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Abiteboul and P. Kanellakis. Object identity as a query language primitive. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, pages 159–173, Portland, Oregon, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Serge Abiteboul and Richard Hull. IFO: A formal semantic database model. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 12(4):525–565, December 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Bancilhon. Object-oriented database systems. In Proceedings of 7th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 152–162, Los Angeles, California, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Banerjee, W. Kim, H. Kim, and H. Korth. Semantics and implementation of schema evolution in object-oriented databases. SIGMOD Record, 16(3):311–322, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Batini and M. Lenzerini. A methodology for data schema integration in the entity-relationship model. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-10(6):650–663, November 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S. Navathe. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4):323–364, December 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Buneman, S. Davidson, and A. Kosky. Theoretical aspects of schema merging. In LNCS 580: Advances in Database Technology — EDBT '9l, pages 152–167. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. B. Davidson, A. S. Kosky, and B. Eckman. Facilitating transformations in a human genome project database. In Proc. Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pages 423–432, December 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U. Dayal and H. Hwang. View definition and generalisation for database integration in Multibase: A system for heterogeneous distributed databases. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-10(6):628–644, November 1994Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    C. Eick. A methodology for the deisgn and transformation of conceptual schemas. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Databases, Barcelona, Spain, pages 25–34, September 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Eliassen and R. Karlsen. Interoperability and object identity. SIGMOD Record, 20(4):25–29, December 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Hammer and D. McLeod. Database description with SDM: A semantic database model. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 6(3):351–386, September 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dennis Heimbigner and Dennis McLeod. A federated architecture for information management. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 3(3), July 1985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Hull. Relative information capacity of simple relational database schemata. SIAM Journal of Computing, 15(3):865–886, August 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Richard Hull and Roger King. Semantic database modeling: Survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(3):201–260, September 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. Kent. The breakdown of the information model in multi-database systems. SIGMOD Record, 20(4):10–15, December 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Setrag N. Khoshafian and George P. Copeland. Object identity. In Stanley B. Zdonik and David Maier, editors, Readings in Object Oriented Database Systems, pages 37–46. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, California, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Anthony Kosky. Observational properties of databases with object identity. Technical Report MS-CIS-95-20, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anthony Kosky. Transforming Databases with Recursive Data Structures. PhD thesis, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, November 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anthony Kosky. Types with extents: On transforming and querying self-referential data-structures. PhD Thesis Proposal, Technical Report MS-CIS-95-21, University of Pennsylvania, May 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    W. Litwin, L. Mark, and N. Roussopoulos. Interoperability of multiple autonomous databases. ACM Computing Surveys, 22(3):267–293, September 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. J. Miller, Y. E. Ioannidis, and R Ramakrishnan. The use of information capacity in schema integration and translation. In Proc. 19th International VLDB Conference, pages 120–133, August 1993.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. J. Miller, Y. E. Ioannidis, and R Ramakrishnan. Schema equivalence in heterogeneous systems: Bridging theory and practice. Information Systems, 19, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A. Motro. Superviews: Virtual integration of multiple databases. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-13(7):785–798, July 1987.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Navathe, R. Elmasri, and J. Larson. Integrating user views in database design. IEEE Computer, 19(1):50–62, January 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    D. Penney and J. Stein. Class modification in the gemstone object-oriented dbms. SIGPLAN Notices (Proc. OOOPSLA '87), 22(12):111–117, October 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    John F. Roddick. Schema evolution in database systems — An annotated bibliography. SIGMOD Record, 21(4):35–40, December 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Rosenthal and D. Reiner. Theoretically sound transformations for practical database design. In S. T. March, editor, Entity-Relationship Approach, pages 115–131, 1988.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Rusinkiewicz, A. Sheth, and G. Karabatis. Specifying interdatabase dependencies in a multidatabase environment. IEEE Computer, December 1991.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    F. Saltor, M. Castellanos, and M. Garcia-Solaco. Suitability of data models as canonical models for federated databases. SIGMOD Record, 20(4):44–48, December 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. Shoval and S. Zohn. Binary-relationship integration methodology. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 6:225–249, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Andrea H. Skarra and Stanley B. Zdonik. Type evolution in an object oriented database. In Bruce Shriver and Peter Wegner, editors, Research Directions in Object Oriented Programming, pages 392–415. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Spaccapietra and C. Parent. Conflicts and correspondence assertions in interoperable dbs. SIGMOD Record,20(4):49–54, December 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Tresch and M. Scholl. Schema transformation without database reorganization. SIGMOD Record, 22(1):21–27, March 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jeffrey D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledgebase Systems I. Computer Science Press, Rockville, MD 20850, 1989.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    S. Widjojo, R. Hull, and D. S. Wile. A specificational approach to merging persistent object bases. In Al Dearle, Gail Shaw, and Stanley Zdonik, editors, Implementing Persistent Object Bases. Morgan Kaufmann, December 1990.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    S. Widjojo, D. S. Wile, and R. Hull. Worldbase: A new approach to sharing distributed information. Technical report, USC/Information Sciences Institute, February 1990.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    G. Wiederhold and X. Qian. Modeling asynchrony in distributed databases. Proc. 1987 International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 246–250, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia
  2. 2.Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeley

Personalised recommendations