Advertisement

Constraint confrontation: An important step in view integration

  • I. Comyn-Wattiau
  • M. Bouzeghoub
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 593)

Abstract

This paper addresses the problem of constraint integration in database design. The approach is inserted in an incremental database design methodology supported by the design environment KHEOPS. The view integration step using semantic unification is followed by the initial constraint confrontation. The detection phase is a deductive process in which the contradictions and redundancies between constraints are exhibited. The following conflict resolution depends on the strategy initially chosen by the designer. Four strategies are presented and discussed. An example of use is given to illustrate the application of those strategies. This approach could be enlarged in an object oriented context where schemata would have not only constraints but also methods to compare.

Keywords

database design view integration integrity constraint forward chaining conflict resolution deductive process 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Armstrong 74] “Dependency Structures of Database Relationships”, Armstrong W, Proceed. 1974 IFIP Congress, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.Google Scholar
  2. [Batini & Lenzerini 84] “A Methodology for Data Schema Integration in the E-R Model”, Batini C, Lenzerini M, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Nov 84.Google Scholar
  3. [Batini & al 86] “A Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Database Schema Integration”, Batini C, Lenzerini M, Navathe SB, ACM Computing Surveys, Dec 86.Google Scholar
  4. [Beeri & Bernstein 79] “Computational Problems Related to the Design of Normal Form Relational Schemas”, Beeri C, Bernstein P, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, March 79.Google Scholar
  5. [Bernstein 76] “Synthesizing third normal form relations from functional dependencies”, Bernstein P, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. [Bouzeghoub 86] “SECSI: Un Système Expert en Conception de Systèmes d'Information”, Bouzeghoub M, Thèse de doctorat de l'université Paris VI, March 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [Bouzeghoub & Comyn 90] “View Integration by Semantic Unification and Transformation of Data Structures”, Bouzeghoub M, Comyn I, Proceed of the ER conf, Lausanne, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. [Bouzeghoub & Métais 91] “Semantic Approach For Object Oriented Database Design”, Bouzeghoub M, Métais E, Proceed of the VLDB conf, Barcelone, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. [Convent 86] “Unsolvable Problems Related to the View Integration Approadch”, Convent B, ICDT Conf, Roma, Sept 1986.Google Scholar
  10. [Dayal & Hwang 84] “View Definition and Generalization for Database Integration in a Multidatabase System” Dayal U, Hwang H, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Nov 1984.Google Scholar
  11. [Elmasri & Wiederhold 79] “Data Model Integration Using the Structural Model” Elmasri R & Wiederhold G, Proceed. ACM-SIGMOD internat. conf., Boston 1979.Google Scholar
  12. [Knight 89] “Unification: A Multidisciplinary Survey” Knight K, ACM Computing Surveys, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [Larson & al 89] “A Theory of Attribute Equivalence in Databases with Application to Schema Integration”, Larson JA, Navathe SB, El-Masri R, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol 15(4), 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [Mannino & Effelsberg 84] “Matching Techniques in Global Schema Design”, Mannino MV, Effelsberg W, Proceed. IEEE COMPDEC conf., Los Angeles, CA, 1984.Google Scholar
  15. [Motro 87] “Constructing Superviews”, Motro A, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, July 1987.Google Scholar
  16. [Navathe & Gadgil 82] “A Methodology for View Integration in Logical Database Design”, Navathe SB, Gadgil S, Proceed. 8th VLDB Conference, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. [Navathe & al 84] “Relationship Merging in Schema Integration”, Navathe S, El-Masri R, Sashidar T, Proceedings 10th VLDB Conference, 1984.Google Scholar
  18. [Smith & Smith 77] “Database Abstractions: Aggregation and Generalization”, Smith JM, Smith DCP, ACM Transactions on Database Systems Vol 2, N∘ 2, June 1977.Google Scholar
  19. [de Souza 86] “SIS-A Schema Integration System”, de Souza JM, Proc. BNCOD 5 conference, 1986.Google Scholar
  20. [Spaccapietra & Parent 90] “View integration: A step forward in solving structural conflicts”, Spaccapietra S, Parent C, Proc. of VIes Journées Bases de Données Avancées, Montpellier, Sept 1990.Google Scholar
  21. [Tucherman & al 86] “A Software Tool for Modular Database Design”, Tucherman L, Furtado AL, Casanova MA, Proceed. of 11th VLDB Conf, Stockholm, Aug 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Comyn-Wattiau
    • 1
  • M. Bouzeghoub
    • 2
  1. 1.ESSEC, Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Economiques et CommercialesCergy-Pontoise CedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire MASIUniversité Paris VI, Centre de VersaillesVersaillesFrance

Personalised recommendations