Advertisement

Update Support for Database Views Via Cooperation

  • Stephen J. Hegner
  • Peggy Schmidt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4690)

Abstract

Support for updates to views of database schemata is typically very limited; only those changes which can be represented entirely within the view, or changes which involve only generic changes outside of the view, are permitted. In this work, a different point of view towards the view-update problem is taken. If a proposed update cannot be performed within the view, then rather than rejecting it outright, the cooperation of other views is sought, so that in their combined environments the desired changes can be realized. This approach has not only the advantage that a wider range of updates are supported than is possible with more traditional approaches, but also that updates which require the combined access privileges of several users are supported.

Keywords

update view 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bancilhon, F., Spyratos, N.: Update semantics of relational views. ACM Trans. Database Systems 6, 557–575 (1981)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hegner, S.J.: An order-based theory of updates for database views. Ann. Math. Art. Intell. 40, 63–125 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hegner, S.J.: The complexity of embedded axiomatization for a class of closed database views. Ann. Math. Art. Intell. 46, 38–97 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langerak, R.: View updates in relational databases with an independent scheme. ACM Trans. Database Systems 15, 40–66 (1990)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bentayeb, F., Laurent, D.: View updates translations in relational databases. In: Quirchmayr, G., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Schweighofer, E. (eds.) DEXA 1998. LNCS, vol. 1460, pp. 322–331. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gottlob, G., Paolini, P., Zicari, R.: Properties and update semantics of consistent views. ACM Trans. Database Systems 13, 486–524 (1988)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thalheim, B.: Database component ware. In: Schewe, K.D., Zhou, X. (eds.) Database Technologies, Proceedings of the 14th Australasian Database Conference, ADC 2003, Adelaide, South Australia, February 2003, pp. 13–26. Australian Computer Society (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidt, P., Thalheim, B.: Component-based modeling of huge databases. In: Benczúr, A.A., Demetrovics, J., Gottlob, G. (eds.) ADBIS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3255, pp. 113–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thalheim, B.: Component development and construction for database design. Data Knowl. Eng. 54, 77–95 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thalheim, B.: Entity-Relationship Modeling. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hegner, S.J.: A model of database components and their interconnection based upon communicating views. In: Jakkola, H., Kiyoki, Y., Tokuda, T. (eds.) Information Modelling and Knowledge Systems XXIV. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, IOS Press, Amsterdam ((in press, 2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davey, B.A., Priestly, H.A.: Introduction to Lattices and Order, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management: Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Flores, F., Graves, M., Hartfield, B., Winograd, T.: Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 6, 153–172 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alonso, G., Agrawal, D., Abbadi, A.E., Kamath, M., Günthör, R., Mohan, C.: Advanced transaction models in workflow contexts. In: Su, S.Y.W. (ed.) Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Data Engineering, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 26 - March 1, 1996, pp. 574–581. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rusinkiewicz, M., Sheth, A.P.: Specification and execution of transactional workflows. In: Kim, W. (ed.) Modern Database Systems, pp. 592–620. ACM Press, Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hidders, J., Dumas, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M., Verelst, J.: When are two workflows the same? In: Atkinson, M.D., Dehne, F.K.H.A. (eds.) CATS. CRPIT, vol. 41, pp. 3–11. Australian Computer Society (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen J. Hegner
    • 1
  • Peggy Schmidt
    • 2
  1. 1.UmeåUniversity, Department of Computing Science, SE-901 87 UmeåSweden
  2. 2.Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Department of Computer Science, Olshausenstraße 40, D-24098 KielGermany

Personalised recommendations