Enforcing Confluence of Rule Execution

  • Leonie van der Voort
  • Arno Siebes
Conference paper
Part of the Workshops in Computing book series (WORKSHOPS COMP.)

Abstract

Rules provide the functionality for constraint enforcement and view maintenance. A provably correct implementation of both issues based on rules, requires confluent and terminating behaviour of the rule set. In [15], we introduced a design theory for the static detection of these properties. The detection of confluence is based on commutativity of rule execution, called independence. In this article, we discuss the enforcement of confluence for terminating, dependent rule sets.

For a clear view on the cause of dependence, we identify a conflict set. This set is characterised by a set of dependent rules together with conditions that describe on which part of the database the rules are actually dependent. For the enforcement of confluence without re-definition of dependent rules, we define an ordering mechanism. Finally, a transformation of dependent rules into independent rules is given.

Keywords

Hull Decid Klop 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving production rules for incremental view maintenance. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on VLDB, pages 577–589, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Chakravarthy. Rule management and evaluation: An active dbms perspective. In SIGMOD RECORD, volume 18, pages 20–28, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    U. Dayal, A. Buchmann, and D.R. McCarthy. Rules are objects too: a knowledge model for an active object oriented dbms. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Object-Oriented Database Systems, pages 129–143, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    O. Diaz, N. Paton, and P. Gray. Rule management in object oriented databases a uniform approach. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on VLDB, pages 317–326, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Gatziu, A. Geppert, and K.R. Dittrich. Integrating active concepts into an object-oriented database system. In Proceedings of the 3th International Workshop on DBPL, pages 341–357, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    E.N. Hanson. An initial report on the design of ariel: A dbms with an integrated production rule system. In SIGMOD RECORD, volume 18, pages 12–19, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    R. Hull and D. Jacobs. Language constructs for programming active databases. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on VLDB, pages 455–467, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Y.E. Ioannidis and T.K. Sellis. Conflict resolution of rules assigning values to virtual attributes. In SIGMOD RECORD, volume 18, pages 205–214, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    J.W. Klop. Term rewriting systems: A tutorial. In Bull. European Assoc. Theoretical Computer Science, volume 32, pages 143–183, 1987.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    A.M. Kotz, K.R. Dittrich, and J.A. Mulle. Supporting semantics rules by a generalized event/trigger mechanism. In Advances in Database Technology: EDBT 90, LNCS 416, pages 76–91, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    U. Schreier, H. Pirahesh, R. Agrawal, and C. Mohan. Alert, an architecture for transforming a passive dbms into an active dbms. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on VLDB, pages 469–478, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    E. Simon and C. de Maindreville. Deciding whether a production rule is relational computable. In Proceedings of the ICDT 88, LNCS 326, pages 205–222, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Stonebraker, E, Hanson, and C.H. Hong. The design of the postgres rule system. In Readings in Database Systems, eds. M. Stonebraker, pages 556–565, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Stonebraker, A. Jhingran, J. Goh, and S. Potamianos. On rules, procedures, caching and views in database systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD conference, pages 281–290, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M.H. van der Voort and A.P.J.M. Siebes. Termination and confluence of rule execution. In To be published in the proceedings of the second international conference on Information and Knowledge Management.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M.H. van der Voort and A.P.J.M. Siebes. A design theory for active objects. Technical report, CWI, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Aiken, J. Widom and J.M. Hellerstein. Behavior of database production rules: Termination, confluence, and observable determinism. In SIGMOD RECORD, volume 21, pages 59–68, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    J. Widom and S.J. Finkelstein. Set-oriented production rules in relational database systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD conference, pages 259–270, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Y. Zhou and M. Hsu. A theory for rule triggering systems. In Advances in Database Technology: EDBT 90, LNCS 416, pages 407–422, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© British Computer Society 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonie van der Voort
    • 1
  • Arno Siebes
    • 1
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations