Journal of Intelligent Information Systems

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 167–192 | Cite as

ConceptBase — A deductive object base for meta data management

  • Matthias Jarke
  • Rainer Gallersdörfer
  • Manfred A. Jeusfeld
  • Martin Staudt
  • Stefan Eherer


Deductive object bases attempt to combine the advantages of deductive relational databases with those of object-oriented databases. We review modeling and implementation issues encountered during the development of ConceptBase, a prototype deductive object manager supporting the Telos object model. Significant features include: 1) The symmetric treatment of object-oriented, logic-oriented and graph-oriented perspectives, 2) an infinite metaclass hierarchy as a prerequisite for extensibility and schema evolution, 3) a simple yet powerful formal semantics used as the basis for implementation, 4) a client-server architecture supporting collaborative work in a wide-area setting. Several application experiences demonstrate the value of the approach especially in the field of meta data management.


deductive databases semantic data model conceptual modeling integrity constraints query classes repository object-oreinted databases 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abiteboul S., Grumbach S., “A rule-based language with functions and sets”,ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 16, 1, March 1991, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
  2. Abiteboul S., Lausen G., Uphoff H., Waller E., “Methods and rules”, InProc. ACM SIGMOD, Washington D.C.,May 1993, pp. 32–41.Google Scholar
  3. Baumeister M.,A Concept for Transactions in the Deductive Object Base ConceptBase (in German), Diploma thesis, RWTH Aachen, Germany 1994.Google Scholar
  4. Beeri C., Ramakrishnan R., “On the power of magic”, InProc. 6th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. Bouzeghoub M., Métais E., “Semantic modeling of object oriented databases”, InProc. 17th VLDB Conf., Barcelona, Spain, 1991, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  6. Borenstein N.S.,Multimedia Applications Development with the Andrew Toolkit, Prentice-Hall, N.J., 1990.Google Scholar
  7. Borgida A., “From types to frames: natural semantics specifications for description logics”, In J. Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 1, 1, 1992, pp. 93–126.Google Scholar
  8. Brachman R.J., Schmolze J.G., “An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system.” InCognitive Science 9, 2, April 1985, pp. 171–216.Google Scholar
  9. Brodie M.L., Mylopoulos J., Schmidt J.W. (ed.),On Conceptual Modeling, Springer-Verlag, 1984.Google Scholar
  10. Bry F., Decker H., Manthey R., “A uniform approach to constraint satisfaction and constraint satisfiability in deductive databases”, InProc. EDBT, 1988, pp. 488–505.Google Scholar
  11. Buchheit M., Jeusfeld M.A., Nutt W., Staudt M., “Subsumption between queries to object-oriented Databases.” InInformation Systems, 19, 1, 1994, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
  12. CeriS., Widom J., “Deriving production rules for constraint maintenance”,In Proc. 16th VLDB Conf., Brisbane, Australia, 1990, pp. 566–577.Google Scholar
  13. Chen P.S., Hennicker R., Jarke M., “On the retrieval of reusable software components”, InProc. 2nd Intl. Workshop on Software Reuse, Lucca, Italy, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. Eherer S., Jarke M., “Knowledge-based support for hypertext co-authoring”, InProc. 2nd Intl. Conf. Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'91), Berlin, Germany, Aug. 21–23, 1991, pp. 465–470.Google Scholar
  15. Gallersdörfer R.,Realization of a Deductive Object Base by Abstract Data Types (in German), Diploma thesis, Universität Passau, Germany 1990.Google Scholar
  16. Grob R., Jacobs S., Kethers S., “Towards CIS in quality management-integration of agents and methods”,2nd Intl. Conf. on Cooperative Information Systems, Toronto, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. Gupta A., Mumick I.S., Subrahmanian V.S., “Maintaining views incrementally”,Proc. of the ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, Washington DC, 1993, pp. 157–166.Google Scholar
  18. Jarke M. (ed.),Database Application Engineering with DAIDA, Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. Jarke M., Eherer S., Gallersdörfer R., Jeusfeld M.A., Staudt M., “ConceptBase – A deductive object base manager”,Aachener Informatik-Berichte 93–14, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. Jarke M., Jeusfeld M.A., Rose T., “Software process modeling as a strategy for KBMS implementation”, InProc. 1st Intl. Conf. Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, Kyoto, Japan, Dec. 1989.Google Scholar
  21. Jarke M., Jeusfeld M.A., Szczurko P, “Three aspects of intelligent cooperation in the quality cycle”,International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2,4, Dec. 1993.Google Scholar
  22. Jarke M., Maltzahn C., Rose T., “Sharing processes: team coordination in design repositories”,Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems Vol. 1 No. 1, 145–168, March 1992.Google Scholar
  23. Jeusfeld M.A.,Update Control in Deductive Object Bases (in German), Infix-Verlag, St. Augustin, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. Jeusfeld M.A., Jarke M., “From relational to object-oriented integrity simplification”, InProc. 2nd Intl. Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, LNCS 566, Springer-Verlag, pp. 460–477, 1991.Google Scholar
  25. Kakas A,C., Mancarella P., “Database updates through abduction”, InProc. VLDB, Brisbane, Australia, 1990, pp. 650–661.Google Scholar
  26. Kifer M., Lausen G., “F-Logic: a higher-order language for reasoning about objects, inheritance, and scheme”, InProc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, Portland, Oregon, 1989, pp. 134–146.Google Scholar
  27. Lloyd J.W., Topor R.W., “Making PROLOG more expressive”, InJournal of Logic Programming, March 1984, pp. 225–240.Google Scholar
  28. Mylopoulos J., Borgida A., Jarke M., Koubarakis M., “Telos – a language for representing knowledge about information systems”, InACM Trans. Information Systems, 8, 4, 1990, pp. 325–362.Google Scholar
  29. Pirahesh H., Mitschang B., Südkamp N., Lindsay B., “Composite-object views in relational DBMS: an implementation perspective”, InInformation Systems, 19, 1, 1994, pp. 69–88.Google Scholar
  30. Pohl K., Assenova P., Dömges R., Johannesson P., Maiden N.A.M., Plihon V., Schmitt J.-R., Spanoudakis G., “Applying AI techniques to requirements engineering: The NATURE prototype”, InProc. ICSE Workshop on AI and Software Engineering, Sorrento, Italy, May 1994.Google Scholar
  31. Pucheral P., Thevenin J.-M., “Pipelined query processing in the DBGraph storage model”, InProc. EDBT'92, Vienna, Austria, March 1992, pp. 516–533, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. Ramakrishnan R., Ullman J.D.,“A survey of research on deductive database systems”, manuscript, to appear inJournal of Logic Programming, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. Ramesh B., Dhar V., “Supporting systems development by capturing deliberations during requirements engineering”, InIEEE Trans. Software Engineering, 18, 6, 1992, pp. 498–510.Google Scholar
  34. Ramesh B., Luqi, “Process knowledge based rapid prototyping for requirements engineering”, InProc. IEEE Intl. Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE'93), San Diego, CA, Jan. 1993, pp. 248–255.Google Scholar
  35. Rich C. (ed.), “Special Issue on Implemented Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Systems”,SIGART Bulletin 2,3, June 1991.Google Scholar
  36. Rose T., Jarke M., Mylopoulos J., “Organizing software repositories-modeling requirements and implementation experiences”, InProc. 16th Intl. Computer Software & Applications Conf., Chicago, IL, Sept. 23–25, 1992.Google Scholar
  37. Rose T., Mylopoulos J. et al., “Supporting the development of intelligent information systems – a multi-cultural approach”, Technical report, University of Toronto, 1994.Google Scholar
  38. Shaw G.M., Zdonik S.B., “A query algebra for object-oriented databases”, InProc. of the 6th Intl. Conf. on Data Engineering, pp. 154–162, 1990.Google Scholar
  39. Srivastava D., Ramakrishnan R., Seshadri P., Sudarshan S., “Coral ++: Adding object-orientation to a logic database Language”,Proc. of the 19th VLDB Conf, Dublin, Ireland, 1993, pp. 158–170.Google Scholar
  40. Stanley M.T.,CML — a knowledge representation language with application to requirements modeling, M.S.thesis, University of Toronto, Ontario, 1986.Google Scholar
  41. Staudt M.,Query Representation and Evaluation in Deductive Object Bases (in German), Diploma thesis, Universität Passau, Germany, 1990.Google Scholar
  42. Staudt M., Nissen H.W., Jeusfeld M.A., “Query by class, rule and concept”,Applied Intelligence, 4(2), pp. 133–157, 1994.Google Scholar
  43. Steinke G., Jarke M., “Support for security modeling in information systems design”, InProc. IFIP 11.3 Working Conf. on Database Security, Vancouver, Canada, August 19–22, 1992.Google Scholar
  44. Stonebraker M., “The design of the POSTGRES storage system”, InProc. 13th VLDB Conf., Brighton, England, 1987, pp. 289–300.Google Scholar
  45. Stonebraker M. (ed.), Special Issue on Database Prototype Systems,IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering 2(1), March 1990.Google Scholar
  46. Thönnissen H.J.Design and Implementation of an Object Algebra for a Deductive Object Base System (in German), Diploma thesis, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  47. Ullman J.D.,Principles of Database and Knowledge Base Systems, Vol. II., Computer Science Press 1989.Google Scholar
  48. Valduriez P., “Join indices”, InACM TODS, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 1987.Google Scholar
  49. Vandenberg S.L., DeWitt D.J., “Algebraic support for complex objects with arrays, identity and inheritance”, InProc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, pp. 158–167, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Jarke
    • 1
  • Rainer Gallersdörfer
    • 1
  • Manfred A. Jeusfeld
    • 1
  • Martin Staudt
    • 1
  • Stefan Eherer
    • 2
  1. 1.RWTH Aachen, Informatik VAachenGermany
  2. 2.Lotus Consulting Services GmbHAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations