Advertisement

Set operations in a data model supporting complex objects

  • Elke A. Rundensteiner
  • Lubomir Bic
Session 7: Database Programming Languages
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 416)

Abstract

Class creation by set operations has largely been ignored in the literature. Precise semantics of set operations on complex objects require a clear distinction between the dual notions of a set and a type, both of which are present in a class. Our paper fills this gap by presenting a framework for executing set-theoretic operations on the class construct. The proposed set operations determine both the type description of the derived class as well as its set membership. For the former, we develop inheritance rules for property characteristics such as single- versus multi-valued and required versus optional. For the later, we borrow the object identity concept from data modeling research. Our framework allows for property inheritance among classes that are not necessarily is a related.

Keywords

Type Description Union Operation Class Creation Class Relationship Entity Reference 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Abiteboul, S. and Hull, R. IFO: A Formal Semantic Database Model. ACM TODS, Dec. 1987, vol. 12, issue 4, 525–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Atkinson, M. P., and Buneman, O. P., Types and Persistence In Database Programming Languages, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 87, 105–190.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Brachman, R. J., What IS-A is and isn't: An Analysis of Taxonomic Links in Semantic Networks, Computer, Oct. 83, 30–36.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Hammer M. and McLeod D.J. Database Description with SDM: A Semantic Data Model. ACM TODS, vol. 6, no. 3, Sept. 1981, 351–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Hull, R. and King, R. Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications and Research Issues, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 19, no. 3, Sept. 1987, 201–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Khoshafian, S.N. and Copeland G.P., Object Identity, Sep. 1986, Proc. OOPSLA'86, ACM, 406–416.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Mylopoulos, J., Bernstein, P.A., and Wong H.K.T. A Language Facility for Designing Database-Intensive Applications, June 1980, vol. 5, issue 2, ACM TODS, 185–207.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Rundensteiner, E. A., and Bic, L., Aggregates in Possibilistic Databases, VLDB'89, Aug. 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Rundensteiner, E. A., and Bic, L., Set Operations in Semantic Data Models, Uni. of Cal, Irvine, Technical Report No. 89-22, June 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Su, Y. W. S., Modeling Integrated Manufacturing Data with SAM*, Computer 19, 1, 1986, 34–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elke A. Rundensteiner
    • 1
  • Lubomir Bic
    • 1
  1. 1.Information and Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of California, IrvineIrvine

Personalised recommendations