On confluence property of active databases with meta-rules

  • Xianchang Wang
  • Jia-Huai You
  • Li Yan Yuan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1312)


An active database consists of a collection of event-conditionaction rules (or ECA-rules), some meta rules that specify the desired interactions and constraints for the execution of finable rules, and a traditional database. The main goal of an active database is to automatically manage database operations. In general, the occurrence of an event can cause several rules to be firable nondeterministically and the execution of a firable rule may dynamically cause some other rules to be firable. It is this nondeterministic and dynamical behavior that may result in more than one valid sequence of possible rule executions. In this paper we address the following problem in active database with meta-rules: Upon the occurrence of an event, whether, or under what conditions, one is guaranteed with a unique final database state when the rule execution terminates. This property is called the confluence property. The main result is a sufficient condition for an active database to be confluent. We show that under some reasonable assumptions this condition is also necessary for the confluence property.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Aiken, J. Widom, and J.M. Hellerstein. Behavior of database production rules: termination, confluence, and observable determinism. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 59–68, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. Baralis, S. Ceri, and J. Widom. Better termination analysis for active databases. In Rules in Database Systems: The workshop in computing, pages 163–179, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    O. Etzion. Reasoning about the behavior of active database applications. In Rules in Database Systems, LNCS 985, pages 86–100, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    H. V. Jagadish, A. O. Mendelzon, and I. S. Mumick. Managing conflicts between rules. In Proc. of PODS. Montreal Quebec, Canada, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Philip J. Pratt, Joseph J. Adamski. Database Systems Management and Design. Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. W. Paton, J. Campin, A.A. A. Fernandes, and M.H. Williams. Rules in database. In Timos Sellis, editor, Formal Specification of Active Database Functionality: A Survey, pages 221–35. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 985, Springer, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Tawbi, G. Jaber, and M. Dalmau. Activity specification using rendezvous. In Rules in Database Systems, LNCS 985, pages 51–65, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    L. van der Voort and A. Siebes. Enforcing confluence of rule execution. In Proceedings of the first Int. Workshop on Rules In Databases Systems, pages 194–207. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Zhou and M. Hsu. A theory for rule triggering systems. In Proc. Extending Database Technology (EDBI), pages 407–421. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xianchang Wang
    • 1
  • Jia-Huai You
    • 1
  • Li Yan Yuan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of Alberta EdmontonAlbertaCanada

Personalised recommendations