Conflictfreeness as a basis for schema integration

  • Love Ekenberg
  • Paul Johannesson
Conceptual Modelling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1006)


We present a formal framework for the combination of schemas. A main problem addressed is that of determining when two schemas can be meaningfully integrated. Another problem is how to merge two schemas into an integrated schema that has the same information capacity as the original ones, i.e., that the resulting schema can represent as much information as the original schemas. We show that both these problems can be solved by placing a restriction on the schemas to be integrated. The restriction, called conflictfreeness, states that the rules of one schema together with a set of correspondence assertions may not restrict the models of the other schema. We also give decidability and complexity results for the problem of determining conflictfreeness.


schema integration semantic interoperability conceptual modelling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Batini86]
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini and S. B. Navathe, “A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration”, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 323–364, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Biskup86]
    J. Biskup and B. Convent, “A Formal View Integration Method”, in International Conference on the Management of Data, Washington, ACM, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. [Bouzeghoub90]
    M. Bouzeghoub and I. Comyn-Wattiau, “View Integration by Semantic Unification and Transformation of Data Structures”, in Ninth International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, Ed. H. Kangassalo, pp. 413–430, Lausanne, North-Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [Dayal84]
    U. Dayal and H.-Y. Hwang, “View Definition and Generalization for Database Integration in a Multidatabase System”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-10, no. 6, pp. 628–644, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. [Dreben79]
    B. Dreben and W. D. Goldfarb, The Decision Problem: Solvable Classes of Quantification Formulas, Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley, 1979.Google Scholar
  6. [Effel84]
    W. Effelsberg and M. V. Mannino, “Attribute Equivalence in Global Schema Design for Heterogeneous Distributed Databases”, Information Systems, vol. 9, no. 3/4, pp. 237–240, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Hull86]
    R. Hull, “Relative Information Capacity of Simple Relational Database Schemata”, SIAM Journal of Computing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 856–886, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Johnson90]
    D.S. Johnson “A Catalogue of Complexity Classes”, in Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science: Volume A, Ed. Jan van Leeuwen, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [Johannesson91]
    P. Johannesson, “A Logic Based Approach to Schema Integration”, in 10th International Conference on Entity-Relationship Approach, Ed. T. Teorey, San Francisco, North-Holland, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [Johannesson93]
    P. Johannesson, “A Logical Basis for Schema Integration”, in Third International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering — Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems, Ed. H. Schek, Vienna, IEEE Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [Johannesson94a]
    P. Johannesson, “Linguistic Instruments and Qualitative Reasoning for Schema Integration”, in Third International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Ed. N. Adam. Gaithersburg, Maryland, IEEE Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [Johannesson94b]
    P. Johannesson, “Schema Standardization as an Aid in View Integration”, in Information Systems, Vol. 19, No 3, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [Larson89]
    J. A. Larson, S. Navathe and R. ElMasri, “A Theory of Attribute Equivalence in Databases with Applications to Schema Integration”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 449–463, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [Miller94]
    R. Miller, Y. Ioannidis, and R. Ramakrishnan, “Schema Equivalence in Heterogeneous Systems: Bridging Theory and Practice”, in Information Systems, Vol. 19, No 1,1994.Google Scholar
  15. [Motro87]
    A. Motro, “Superviews: Virtual Integration of Multiple Databases”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 785–798, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [Spaccapietra92]
    S. Spaccapietra, C. Parent and Y. Dupont, “Model Independent Assertions for Integration of Heterogeneous Schemas”, The VLDB Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 81–126, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [Stålmarck95]
    G. Stålmarck, System for Determining Propositional Logic Theorems by Applying Values and Rules to Triplets that are Generated from a Formula, US. Patent No. 5 276 897.Google Scholar
  18. [Özsu90]
    M. T. Özsu and P. Valduriez, Principles of Distributed Database Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Love Ekenberg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paul Johannesson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Logikkonsult NP ABHägerstenSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesRoyal Institute of Technology and Stockholm UniversityKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations