Elementary Translations: The Seesaws for Achieving Traceability Between Database Schemata

  • Eladio Domínguez
  • Jorge Lloret
  • Ángel L. Rubio
  • María A. Zapata
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3289)


There exist several recent approaches that leverages the use of model transformations during software development. The existence of different kinds of models, at different levels of abstraction, involves the necessity of transferring knowledge from one model to another. This framework can also be applied in the context of metadata management for database evolution, in which transformations are needed both to translate schemata from one level to another and to modify existing schemata. In this paper we introduce the notions of translation rule and elementary translation which are used within a forward database maintenance strategy.


Conceptual Schema Entity Type Database Schema Logical Element Model Drive Architecture 
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.
    Al-Jadir, L., Léonard, M.: Multiobjects to Ease Schema Evolution in an OODBMS. In: Ling, T.-W., Ram, S., Li Lee, M. (eds.) ER 1998. LNCS, vol. 1507, pp. 316–333. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein, P.A.: Applying Model Management to Classical Meta Data Problems. In: First Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research-CIDR 2003, Online Proceedings (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Claypool, K.T., Rundensteiner, E.A.: Gangam: A Transformation Modeling Framework. In: International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications-DASFAA 2003, pp. 47–54. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Claypool, K.T., Rundensteiner, E.A., Heineman, G.T.: ROVER: flexible yet consistent evolution of relationships. Data Knowl. Eng. 39(1), 27–50 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domínguez, E., Lloret, J., Rubio, A.L., Zapata, M.A.: An MDA–Based Approach to Managing Database Evolution (position paper). In: Rensink, A. (ed.) Proceedings of MDAFA 2003. Model–Driven Architecture: Foundations and Aplications, CTIT Technical Report Series, No. 03-27, pp. 97–102 (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Domínguez, E., Lloret, J., Rubio, A.L., Zapata, M.A.: Evolving the implementation of ISA Relationships (submitted for publication)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Domínguez, E., Lloret, J., Zapata, M.A.: An architecture for Managing Database Evolution. In: Olivé, À., Yoshikawa, M., Yu, E.S.K. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2784, pp. 63–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Domínguez, E., Zapata, M.A., Rubio, J.J.: A Conceptual Approach to Meta–Modelling. In: Olivé, À., Pastor, J.A. (eds.) CAiSE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1250, pp. 319–332. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elmasri, R.A., Navathe, S.B.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 4th edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferrandina, F., Meyer, T., Zicari, R., Ferran, G., Madec, J.: Schema and Database Evolution in the O2 Object Database System. In: Very Large Data Bases-VLDB 1995, pp. 170–181 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hainaut, J.L., Englebert, V., Henrard, J., Hick, J.M., Roland, D.: Database Evolution: the DB-MAIN approach. In: Loucopoulos, P. (ed.) ER 1994. LNCS, vol. 881, pp. 112–131. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hick, J.M.: Evolution of relational database applications: Methods and tools, PhD Thesis, University of Namur (2001) (in French)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hick, J.M., Hainaut, J.L.: Strategy for Database Application Evolution: The DBMAIN Approach. In: Song, I.-Y., Liddle, S.W., Ling, T.-W., Scheuermann, P. (eds.) ER 2003. LNCS, vol. 2813, pp. 291–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleppe, A., Warmer, J., Bast, W.: MDA explained. In: The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise, Addison–Wesley, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    López, J.R., Olivé, A.: A Framework for the Evolution of Temporal Conceptual Schemas of Information Systems. In: Wangler, B., Bergman, L.D. (eds.) CAiSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1789, pp. 369–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller, J., Mukerji, J.(eds.): MDA Guide Version 1.0, Object Management Group, Document number omg/2003-05-01(May 1, 2003) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    OMG, UML Specification version 1.5 formal/2003-03-01 (March, 2003), available at
  18. 18.
    Proper, H.A.: Data Schema Design as a Schema Evolution Process. Data Knowl. Eng. 22(2), 159–189 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramesh, B.: Factors influencing requirements traceability practice. Communications of the ACM 41(12), 37–44 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    da Silva, S., Laender, A.H.F., Casanova, M.A.: An Approach to Maintaining Optimized Relational Representations of Entity-Relationship Schemas. In: Thalheim, B. (ed.) ER 1996. LNCS, vol. 1157, pp. 292–308. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stonebraker, M., Moore, D., Brown, P.: Object Relational DBMSs: Tracking the next great wave, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wan-Kadir, W.M.N., Loucopoulos, P.: Relating evolving business rules to software design. Journal of Systems Architecture (2003) (article in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eladio Domínguez
    • 1
  • Jorge Lloret
    • 1
  • Ángel L. Rubio
    • 2
  • María A. Zapata
    • 1
  1. 1.Dpto. de Informática e Ingeniería de Sistemas, Facultad de Ciencias, Edificio de MatemáticasUniversidad de ZaragozaZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.Dpto. de Matemáticas y Computación, Edificio VivesUniversidad de La RiojaLogroñoSpain

Personalised recommendations