Structured objects: Modeling and reasoning

Objects and Inheritance
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1013)


One distinctive characteristic of object-oriented data models over traditional database systems is that they provide more expressive power in schema definition. Nevertheless, the defining power of object-oriented models is still somewhat limited, mainly because it is commonly accepted that part of the semantics of the application can be represented within methods. The research work reported in this paper explores the possibility of enhancing the power of object-oriented data models in schema definition, thus offering more possibilities to reason about the intension of the database and better supporting data management. We demonstrate our approach by presenting a new data model, called CVL, that extends the usual object-oriented data models with several aspects, including view definition, recursive structure modeling, navigation of the schema through forward and backward traversal of links (attributes and relations), subsetting of attributes, and cardinality ratio constraints on links. CVL is equipped with sound, complete, and terminating inference procedures, that allow various forms of reasoning to be carried out on the intensional level of the database.


Modal Logic Label Transition System Deductive Database Schema Definition Reasoning Procedure 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Abiteboul and A. Bonner. Objects and views. In J. Clifford and R. King, editors, Proc. of ACM SIGMOD, pages 238–247, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Abiteboul and P. Kanellakis. Object identity as a query language primitive. In Proc. of ACM SIGMOD, pages 159–173, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Bancilhon, C. Delobel, and P. Kanellakis. Building an Object-Oriented Database System — The story of O2. Morgan Kaufmann, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Bergamaschi and C. Sartori. On taxonomic reasoning in conceptual design. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 17(3):385–422, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Buchheit, M. A. Jeusfeld, W. Nutt, and M. Staudt. Subsumption between queries to Object-Oriented databases. Information Systems, 19(1):33–54, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Calvanese and M. Lenzerini. Making object-oriented schemas more expressive. In Proc. of PODS-94, pages 243–254. ACM Press and Addison Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Calvanese, M. Lenzerini, and D. Nardi. A unified framework for class based representation formalisms. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso, editors, Proc. of KR-94, pages 109–120. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Catarci and M. Lenzerini. Representing and using interschema knowledge in cooperative information systems. J. of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(4):375–398, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. G. G. Cattell, editor. The Object Database Standard: ODMG-93. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994. Release 1.1.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Christophides, S. Abiteboul, S. Cluet, and M. Scholl. From structured documents to novel query facilities. In R. T. Snodgrass and M. Winslett, editors, Proc. of ACM SIGMOD, pages 313–324, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. De Giacomo. Decidability of Class-Based Knowledge Representation Formalisms and their Application to Medical Terminology Servers. PhD thesis, Dip. di Inf. e Sist., Univ. di Roma “La Sapienza”, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. Boosting the correspondence between description logics and prepositional dynamic logics. In Proc. of AAAI-94, pages 205–212. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini. What's in an aggregate: Foundations for description logics with tuples and sets. In Proc. of IJCAI-95, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Di Battista and M. Lenzerini. Deductive entity-relationship modeling. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 5(3):439–450, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. A. Emerson and C. S. Jutla. On simultaneously determinizing and complementing ω-automata. In Proc. of LICS-89, pages 333–342, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. J. Fischer and R. E. Ladner. Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. of Computer and System Sciences, 18:194–211, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 2, pages 497–640. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Hull. A survey of theoretical research on typed complex database objects. In J. Paredaens, editor, Databases, pages 193–256. Academic Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. B. Hull and R. King. Semantic database modelling: Survey, applications and research issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(3):201–260, Sept. 1987.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Kozen and J. Tiuryn. Logics of programs. In J. V. Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science — Formal Models and Semantics, pages 789–840. Elsevier Science Publishers (North-Holland), 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Lecluse and P. Richard. Modeling complex structures in object-oriented databases. In Proc. of PODS-89, pages 362–369, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Staudt, M. Nissen, and M. Jeusfeld. Query by class, rule and concept. J. of Applied Intelligence, 4(2):133–157, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    C. Stirling. Modal and temporal logic. In S. Abramsky, D. M. Gabbay, and T. S. E. Maibaum, editors, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, pages 477–563. Clarendon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. E. Streett. Propositional dynamic logic of looping and converse is elementarily decidable. Information and Computation, 54:121–141, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Y. Vardi and P. Wolper. Automata-theoretic techniques for modal logics of programs. J. of Computer and System Sciences, 32:183–221, 1986.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. A. Woods and J. G. Schmolze. The KL-ONE family. In F. W. Lehmann, editor, Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, pages 133–178. Pergamon Press, 1992. Published as a special issue of Computers & Mathematics with Applications, Volume 23, Number 2–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations