Local referential integrity

  • Gerti Kappel
  • Michael Schrefl
Invited Papers (1) Integrity
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 645)


This paper introduces the concept of local referential integrity according to which an object may only reference objects belonging to the same composite object. For example, in production planning an employee of some department may only be scheduled to work on machines belonging to the same department. Usually, such a constraint must be stated explicitly by a predicate as “add on” to a database schema. Object-oriented data models have become popular for just the opposite. They represent implicitly integrity constraints which formerly had to be stated explicitly. Prominent examples, which so far have been studied independently, are referential integrity and composite objects. Local referential integrity combine's both concepts by applying referential integrity within a composite object. We show that local referential integrity can be represented easily within an object-oriented database schema by using “local object classes” as domains of relationships. A local object class is a set of objects belonging exclusively to some composite object. Local referential integrity is maintained if any relationship from within a composite object to one of its local classes references a current member of that class.


object-oriented database design composite objects referential integrity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    S. Abiteboul and R. Hull, “IFO: A formal semantic database model,” in ACM Transactions on Database Systems, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 525–565, Dec. 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Albano, G. Ghelli and R. Orsini, “A Relationship Mechanism for a Strongly-Typed Object-Oriented Database Programming Language,”in Proceedings of the 17th VLDB Conference, pp. 165–175, Barcelona, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    P. Butterworth, A. Otis and J. Stein, “The GemStone Object Database Management System,” in Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 64–77, October 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Communications of the ACM, Special Issue on Next-Generation Database Systems, vol. 34, no. 10, October 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Ceri and J. Widom, “Deriving Production Rules for Constraint Maintenance,” in Proceedings of the 16th VLDB Conference, pp. 566–577, Brisbane, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P.P. Chen, “The Entity-Relationship Model — Toward a unified view of data,” in ACM Transcations on Database Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–36, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    O. Deux, “The O2 System,” in Communications of the ACM, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 34–48, October 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. Dittrich, “Object-Oriented Database Systems: The Next Miles of the Marathon,” in Information Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 161–167, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    G. Gottlob, G. Kappel and M. Schrefl, “Semantics of Object-Oriented Data Models — The Evolving Algebra Approach,” in Next Generation Information System Technology, Proceedings of the First International East/West Database Workshop, ed. J.W. Schmidt and A.A. Stogny, pp. 144–160, Springer LNCS 504, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Special Issue on Database Prototype Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, March 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Jeusfeld and M. Jarke, “From Relational to Object-Oriented Integrity Simplification,” in Proc. of 2nd Int.Conf on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, ed. Delobel, Kifer, and Masunaga, pp. 460–477, Springer LNCS 566, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    G. Kappel and M. Schrefl, “A Behaviour Integrated Entity Relationship Approach for the Design of Object-Oriented Databases,” in A Bridge to the User, Proceedings of the 7th Int. Conf. on ER Approach, ed. C. Batini, pp. 311–328, North-Holland, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    G. Kappel and M. Schrefl, “Object/Behavior Diagrams,” in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 530–539, IEEE Computer Society Press, Kobe, Japan, April 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    W. Kim et al, “Composite Object Support in an Object-Oriented Database System,” in Object-Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (OOPSLA), Special Issue of SIGPLAN Notices, ed. N. Meyrowitz, vol. 22, no. 12, Dec. 1987.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    W. Kim, E. Bertino and J.F. Garza, “Composite Objects Revisited,” in Proceedings of the ACM-SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, SIGMOD Record, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 337–347, Portland, June 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    W. Kim, J.F. Garza, N. Ballon and D. Woelk, “Architecture of the ORION Next-Generation Database System,” in IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 109–124, March 1990.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    W. Klas, E.J. Neuhold and M. Schrefl, “On an object-oriented datamodel for a knowledge base,” in Research into Networks and Distriubted Application — EUTECO, ed. R. Speth, North-Holland, 1988.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    C. Lecluse and P. Richard, “Database Schemas and Type Systems for DBPL,” Technical Report Altair 55-90, August 1990.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Maier, “Why isn't there an object-oriented data model?,” in Information Processing 89 — IFIP World Computer Congress, ed. G.X. Ritter, pp. 793–798, North-Holland, 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    V.M. Markowitz, “Referential Integrity Revisited: An Object-Oriented Perspective,” in Proceedings of the 16th VLDB Conference, pp. 578–589, Brisbane, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    V.M. Markowitz, “Safe Referential Integrity Structures in Relational Databases,” in Proceedings of the 17th VLDB Conference, pp. 123–132, Barcelona, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    C.B. Medeiros and P. Pfeffer, “Object Integrity Using Rules,” in ECOOP'91, ed. P. America, pp. 219–230, Springer LNCS 512, July 1991.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    T.W. Olle, “System Design Specifications for a Conference Organization System,” in Computerized Assistance During the Information System's Life Cycle, ed. T.W. Olle, A.A. Verrijn-Stuart and L. Bhabuta, pp. 497–539, North-Holland, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Peckham and F. Maryanski, “Semantic Data Models,” in ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 153–189, Sept. 1988.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    B. Pernici, “Objects with Roles,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Conf. of Office Information Systems, pp. 205–215, Cambridge, MA, April 1990.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    J. Richardson and P. Schwarz, “Aspects: Extending Objects to Support Multiple, Independent Roles,” in Proceedings of the ACM-SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, SIGMOD Record, ed. J. Clifford and R. King, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 298–307, Denver, June 1991.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    M. Schrefl, “Behavior Modeling by Stepwise Refining Behavior Diagrams,” in Proceedings of the 9th Int. Conf. on Entity Relationship Approach, pp. 113–128, Lausanne, October 1990.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    M. Schrefl and G. Kappel, “Cooperation Contracts,” in Proceedings of the 10th Int. Conf. on ER Approach, pp. 285–307, Oct. 1991.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    E. Sciore, “Object Specialization,” in ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 103–122, April 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerti Kappel
    • 1
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 2
  1. 1.Inst. für Statistik und InformatikUniversität WienÖsterreich
  2. 2.Inst. für WirtschaftsinformatikUniversität LinzÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations