Advertisement

Declarative Specifications of Complex Transactions

with an Application to Cascading Deletes
  • Bert De Brock
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1773)

Abstract

While specifications of queries usually are of a declarative nature (since the work of Codd in the early seventies), specifications of transactions mainly are of an operational and descriptive nature. Especially descriptions of complex transactions (such as cascading deletes) tend to be very operational. Declarative specifications of transactions usually suffer from the so-called frame problem or do not have a clear semantics. Often these descriptions turn out to be nondeterministic as well. A problematic consequence is that the semantics of transactions and of several related notions is often unclear or even ambiguous. For a database designer this surely is not a good starting point for building applications. Another tendency we recognize is that the current literature on transactions is mainly driven by technical solutions offered by research prototypes and commercial systems and not so much by advanced specification requirements from a user’s or database designer’s point of view. In our opinion, the research questions should (also) include what kind of complex transactions (advanced) users would like to specify (and not only what e.g. the expressive power of a given technical solution is), and how these specifications can be translated to implementations in the currently available (advanced) database management systems. And, moreover, was it not our purpose (with the introduction of 4GL’s and the like) to become declarative instead of operational, concentrating on the “what” instead of the “how”? This paper offers a general framework for declarative specifications of transactions, including complex ones. Transactions on a state space U are considered as functions from U into U. We also take the influence of static and dynamic constraints on the alleged transactions into account. This leads to the notion of the adaptation of a transaction. Applications of our theory included in this paper are the declarative specification of cascading deletes and the distinction between allowable and available transitions. Basic set theory is our main vehicle.

Keywords

Transactions semantics transaction models transaction design database dynamics declarative specifications of database behavior (static and dynamic) integrity constraints adaptations (allowable versus available) transitions cascading deletes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. J. Bonner and M. Kifer. The State of Change: A Survey. In B. Freitag, H. Decker, M. Kifer, and A. Voronkov, editors, Transactions and Change in Logic Databases, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1472, pages 1–36, Springer-Verlag, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. F. Codd. A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6):377–387, 1970.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. F. Codd. Relational Completeness of Data Base Sublanguages. In R. Rustin, editor, Data Base Systems, pages 65–98, Vol. 6, Prentice Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. J. Date. An Introduction to Database Systems, Vol. 1. Addison-Wesley, 6 edition, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. J. Date and H. Darwen. A Guide to the SQL Standard. Addison-Wesley, 4 edition, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. O. de Brock. Foundations of Semantic Databases. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. O. de Brock. A General Treatment of Dynamic Integrity Constraints. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 2000. To appear.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Elmasri and S. B. Navathe. Fundamentals of Database Systems. Benjamin/Cummings, 2 edition, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Database Language SQL, Document ISO/IEC 9075:1992, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Independent Database Team Holland. A Functional Evaluation of Relational Systems Using the Functional Benchmark. IDT/EIT, The Hague, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Koschel and P. C. Lockemann. Distributed Events in Active Database Systems: Letting the Genie out of the Bottle. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 25(12):11–28, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Liu, H. Li, and M. E. Orlowska. Supporting Update Propagation in Object-Oriented Databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 26(1):99–115, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Saake. Descriptive Specification of Database Object Behaviour. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 6:47–73, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Saygin, Ö. Ulusoy, and S. Chakravarthy. Concurrent Rule Execution in Active Databases. Information Systems, 23(1):39–64, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Simon, J. Kiernan, and C. de Maindreville. Implementing High-Level Active Rules on Top of Relational Databases. In L.-Y. Yuan, editor, Proc. of the 18th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB’92, Vancouver, Canada, August 23–27, 1992, pages 315–326, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. F. Stanat and D. F. McAllister. Discrete Mathematics in Computer Science. Prentice Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Widom and S. Ceri, editors. Active Database Systems — Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Widom and S. J. Finkelstein. Set-Oriented Production Rules in Relational Database Systems. In H. Garcia-Molina and H. Jagadish, editors, Proc. of the 1990 ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, Atlantic City, NJ, ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 19, No. 2, pages 259–270, ACM Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bert De Brock
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Management and OrganizationUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations