Advertisement

Subtyping by constraints in object-oriented databases

  • Wolfgang Kowarschick
  • Gerhard Köstler
  • Werner Kießling
Database, Persistency, and File Systems
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1049)

Abstract

For many object-oriented database applications taxonomies with a setinclusion semantics among the type extents are essential. In practical cases, however, common object-oriented modeling techniques often do not result in taxonomies as they ignore application specific constraints. We will elaborate that especially in domains like CAD or similar engineering environments integrity constraints on type attributes have a deep impact on the resulting hierarchy. We argue that subtyping by constraints may be superior to other object-oriented alternatives like subtyping for generalization or nearly-flat hierarchies. Subtyping by constraints achieves a logical set-inclusion hierarchy, and in addition enables a larger amount of semantically correct substitutability. This can even be improved by a novel framework of automatic method adaptation for enhanced substitutability. Moreover, a potential storage penalty caused by making constraints explicit can be avoided completely by applying a new storage optimization technique based on functional integrity constraints. Our results are illustrated by practical examples drawn from the OCAD project.

Keywords

Object-oriented databases and modeling subtyping inheritance constraints update method adaptation storage optimization software reuse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ABD+89]
    Malcolm Atkinson, Francois Bancilhon, Klaus Dittrich, David DeWitt, David Maier, and Stanley Zdonik. The object-oriented database system manifesto. In Proceedings of the 1 st International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD'91), Kyoto, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [Boo94]
    G. Booch. Object-Oriented Analysis and Design—with Applications. Benjamin/Cummings, 2nd edition, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [Bud91]
    T. Budd. An Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [Cat94]
    R.G.G. Cattel, editor. The Object Database Standard: ODMG-93. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, California, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [CCHO89]
    P.S. Canning, W.R. Cook, W.L. Hill, and W.G. Olthoff. Interface for strongly-typed object-oriented programming. In Proceedings of the 4 th Int. Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming Languages, Systems and Applications, Portland, October 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [CY91]
    P. Coad and E. Yourdon. Object-Oriented Design. Yourdon Press Computing Series. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. [GPZ88]
    G. Gottlob, P. Paolini, and R. Zicari. Properties and update semantics of consistent views. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 13(4):486–524, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. [GSUW94]
    A. Gupta, Y. Sagiv, J.D. Ullman, and J. Widom. Constraint checking with partial information. In Proc. ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems., pages 45–55, Minneapolis, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [HO88]
    D. Halbert and P. O'Brien. Using types and inheritance in object-oriented programming. IEEE Software, 4(5), September 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [KA90]
    S. Khoshafian and R. Abnous. Object Orientation—Concepts, Languages, Databases, User Interfaces. Wiley, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [KBA91]
    Setrag Khoshafian, Roger Blumer, and Razmik Abnous. Inheritance and generalization in intelligent SQL. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 13:213–220, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [Kim95]
    W. Kim. Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [KKK95]
    W. Kowarschick, G. Köstler, and W. Kießling. Taxonomic modeling in C++ based object-oriented databases is efficient. Technical Report 320, Institut für Mathematik, Universität Augsburg, 1995. (see http://www.informatik.uni-augsburg.de/info2/literature/Techreports/m320.html).Google Scholar
  14. [LP91]
    W. LaLonde and J. Pugh. Subclassing ≠ subtyping ≠ is-a. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 3(5):57–62, January 1991.Google Scholar
  15. [LS91]
    J.A. Larson and A.S. Sheth. Updating relational views using knowledge at view definition and view update time. Inf. Sys., 16(2):145–168, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. [LT95]
    T.W. Ling and P.K. Teo. Object migration in ISA hierarchies. In T.W. Ling and J. Masunaga, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications (DASFAA '95), pages 292–299, Singapore, April 1995. World Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. [MD94]
    N. Mattos and L.G. DeMichiel. Recent design trade-offs in SQL3. ACM SIGMOD RECORD, 23(4):84–89, December 1994.Google Scholar
  18. [MHM95]
    Richard Mitchel, John Howse, and Ian Maung. As-a: a relationship to support code reuse. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 8(4), July/August 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [MM95]
    J. Melton and N. Mattos. Sigmod tutorial: An overview of the emerging third-generation SQL standard. In ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. [MMM93]
    N.M. Mattos, K. Meyer-Wegner, and B. Mitschang. Grand tour of concepts for object-orientation from a database point of view. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 1992/93(9):321–352, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [MP92]
    D.E. Monarchi and G.I. Puhr. A research typology for object-oriented analysis and design. Communications of the ACM, 35(9):35–47, September 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [RBP+91]
    J. Rumbaugh, M. Blaha, W Premerlani, F. Eddy, and W. Lorensen. Object-Oriented Modeling and Design. Prentice-Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. [Sha94]
    David L. Shang. Covariant specifications. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 29(12):58–65, Dec. 1994.Google Scholar
  24. [SM88]
    S. Shlaer and S.J. Mellor. Object-Oriented System Analysis—Modeling the World in Data. Yourdon Press Computing Series. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. [STSW93]
    K.-D. Schewe, B. Thalheim, J. W. Schmidt, and I. Wetzel. Integrity enforcement in object-oriented databases. In Modelling Database Dynamics, pages 174–195. Springer, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. [Ull88]
    Jeffrey D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, volume 1. Computer Science Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. [ZM90]
    S.B. Zdonik and D. Maier. Fundamentals of object-oriented databases. In S.B. Zdonik and D. Maier, editors, Readings in Object-Oriented Database Systems, pages 1–32. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang Kowarschick
    • 1
  • Gerhard Köstler
    • 2
  • Werner Kießling
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche FakultätUniversität AugsburgAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations