A Model Theory for Generic Schema Management

  • Suad Alagić
  • Philip A. Bernstein
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2397)

Abstract

The core of a model theory for generic schema management is developed. This theory has two distinctive features: it applies to a variety of categories of schemas, and it applies to transformations of both the schema structure and its integrity constraints. A subtle problem of schema integration is considered in its general form, not bound to any particular category of schemas. The proposed solution, as well as the overall theory, is based entirely on schema morphisms that carry both structural and semantic properties. Duality results that apply to the schema and the data levels are established. These results lead to the main contribution of this paper: a formal schema and data management framework for generic schema management. Implications of this theory are established that apply to integrity problems in schema integration. The theory is illustrated by a particular category of schemas with object-oriented features along with typical database integrity constraints.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alagić, S.: Semantics of temporal classes, Information and Computation 163, pp. 60–102, 2000.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alagić, S.: Constrained matching is type safe, Proc. of the Sixth Int. Workshop on Database Programming Languages, LNCS 1369, Springer-Verlag, pp. 78–96, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alagić, S. and M. Alagić, Order-sorted model theory for temporal executable specifications, Theoretical Computer Science 179, pp. 273–299, 1997.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernstein, P. A., A. Halevy, R. A. Pottinger: A vision for management of complex models, A CM SIGMOD Record 29(4), pp. 54–63, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernstein, P.A. and E. Rahm: Data warehouse scenarios for model management, ER 2000, LNCS 1920, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Batini, C., M. Lenzerini, S. B. Navathe: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration, ACM Comp. Surveys 18(4), pp. 323–364, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Buneman, S. Davidson, W. Fan, C. Hara, W-C. Tan, Reasoning about keys for XML, DBPL 2001 (Databases and Programming Languages), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (this volume).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buneman, P., S. Davidson, and A. Kosky: Theoretical aspects of schema merging, EDBT 1992, pp. 152–167.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Buneman, W. Fan, J. Simeon and S. Weinstein, Constraints for semistructured data and XML, A CM SIGMOD Record 30(1), pp. 47–54, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fan, W. and L. Libkin, On XML integrity constraints in the presence of DTDs, PODS 2001, pp. 114–125.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goguen, J. and R. Burstall, Institutions: Abstract model theory for specification and programming, Journal of the ACM 39(1), pp. 92–146, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goguen, J.: Types as theories, in: G. M. Reed, A. W. Roscoe and R. F. Wachter, Topology and Category Theory in Computer Science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 357–390, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goguen, J. and J. Meseguer, Order-sorted algebra I: Equational deduction for multiple inheritance, overloading, exceptions and partial operations, Theoretical Computer Science 105, pp. 217–273, 1992.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haxthausen, A.E. and F. Nickl: Pushouts of order-sorted algebraic specifications, in M. Wirsing and M. Nivat, eds., Algebraic Methodology and Software Tech. (AMAST 96), LNCS 1101, Springer-Verlag, pp. 132–147, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hull, R.: Relative information capacity of simple relational database schemata, SIAM Journal of Computing 15(3), pp. 856–886, 1986.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hull, R.: Managing semantic heterogeneity in databases: A theoretical perspective, PODS 1997, 51–61.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalinichenko, L.A.: Methods and tools for equivalent data model mapping construction, EDBT 1990, LNCS 416, Springer-Verlag, pp. 92–119.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liskov, B. and J. M. Wing: A behavioral notion of subtyping, ACM TOPLAS 16, pp. 1811–1841.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mac Lane, S.: Categories for a Working Mathematician, Springer, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madhavan, J., P. A. Bernstein, E. Rahm: Generic schema matching with Cupid, VLDB 2001, pp. 49–58.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller, R. J., Y. E. Ioannidis, R. Ramakrishnan, Schema equivalence in heterogeneous systems: Bridging theory and practice, Information Systems 19(1), pp. 3–31, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahm, E. and P.A. Bernstein: On matching schemas automatically. VLDB Journal 10(4), pp. 334–350, 2001.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Spaccapietra, S., C. Parent, Y. Dupont: Model independent assertions for integration of heterogeneous schemas, VLDB Journal 1, pp. 81–126, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spaccapietra, S. and C. Parent: View integration: A step forward in solving structural conflicts, IEEE TKDE 6(2), pp. 258–274, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W3C: XML Schema, http://www.w3c.org/XML/schema, 2001.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suad Alagić
    • 1
  • Philip A. Bernstein
    • 1
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmond

Personalised recommendations