Abstract
Active database systems enhance the functionality of traditional databases through the use of active rules or ‘triggers’. There is little consensus, though, on what components should be included in a rule system. In this paper, the expressive power of some simple active database rule systems is examined and the effect of choosing different features studied. Four important parameters of variation are presented, namely the rule language, the external query language, the meta rule language and the pending rule structure. We show that each of these is highly influential in determining the expressiveness of the rule system as a whole, and that an appreciation of them can serve as a basis for understanding the broader picture of system behaviour.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
E. Baralis, S. Ceri, and S. Paraboschi. Improved rule analysis by means of triggering and activation graphs. In T. Sellis, editor, Rules in Database Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 985, pages 165–181. Springer-Verlag, 1995.
S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving production rules for constraint maintenance. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 566–577, Brisbane, Australia, 1990.
S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving production rules for incremental view maintenance. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 577–589, Barcelona, Spain, 1991.
S. Chakravarthy and D. Mishra. Snoop: An expressive event specification language for active databases. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 14(1):1–26, 1994.
C. Collet, T. Coupaye, and T. Svensen. Naos: Efficient and modular reactive capabilities in an object oriented database system. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data bases, pages 132–143, Santiago, Chile, 1994.
U. Dayal, M. Hsu, and R. Ladin. Organizing long running activities with triggers and transactions. In Proceedings of the ACM-SIGMOD International Conference on the Management of Data, pages 204–214, Atlantic City, 1990.
U. Dayal et al.. The HiPAC project: Combining active databases and timing constraints. ACM SIGMOD Record, 17(1):51–70, 1988.
R. Hull and D. Jacobs. Language constructs for programming active databases. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Very Large Databases, pages 455–468, 1991.
H. V. Jagadish, A. O. Mendelzon, and I. S. Mumick. Managing rule conflicts in an active database. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Montreal, Canada, 1996.
P. Picouet and V. Vianu. Semantics and expressiveness issues in active databases. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 126–138, San Jose, California, 1995.
E. Post. Finite combinatory processes-formulation I. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1:103–105, 1936.
E. Simon and C. de Maindreville. Deciding whether a production rule is relational computable. In Proceedings of The International Conference on Database Theory, pages 205–222, 1988.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bailey, J., Dong, G., Ramamohanarao, K. (1996). Structural issues in active rule systems. In: Afrati, F., Kolaitis, P. (eds) Database Theory — ICDT '97. ICDT 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1186. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62222-5_46
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-62222-5_46
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-62222-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49682-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive