Four views of complex objects: A sophisticate's introduction

  • Richard Hull
Part II Fundamental Issues
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 361)


Four database modeling paradigms are compared along a number of dimensions, including their treatment of ‘object identity’; issues of redundant structure and/or data; the notions of ‘type’ and ‘class’; their treatment of sets and context-dependent data; and their treatment of ISA relationships. The modeling paradigms are: complex object types (including nested relations); semantic models; complex object models using object identifiers; and the model of the conceptual language Galileo. The presentation is largely informal, with a focus on philosophic issues.


Query Language Semantic Model Complex Object Object Identity Integrity Constraint 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [AB86]
    S. Abiteboul and N. Bidoit. Nonfirst normal form relations: an algebra allowing data restructuring. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 33:361–393, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [AB87]
    M. Atkinson and P. Buneman. Types and persistence in database programming languages. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(2):105–190, June 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [AB88]
    Serge Abiteboul and Catriel Beeri. On the power of languages for the manipulation of complex objects. Technical Report 846, INRIA, Mai 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [Abi87]
    S. Abiteboul. Bases de donne'es et objets structures. In Bordas, editor, Techniques et Sciences de l'informatique, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. [ACO85]
    A. Albano, L. Cardelli, and R. Orsini. Galileo: A strongly-typed, interactive conceptual language. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 10(2):230–260, June 1985.Google Scholar
  6. [AH87a]
    S. Abiteboul and R. Hull. IFO: A formal semantic database model. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 12(4):525–565, Dec. 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [AH87b]
    T. Andrews and C. Harris. Combining language and database advances in an object-oriented development environment. In Proc. Conf. on Object-oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications, pages 430–440, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. [AOO85]
    A. Albano, M.E. Occhiuto, and R. Orsini. Galileo Reference Manual, VAX/UNIX VERSION 1.0. Technical Report, Dipartimento di Informatica, Universita di Pisa, Italy, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. [BBKV88]
    F. Bancilhon, T. Briggs, S. Khoshafian, and P. Valduriez. FAD, a powerful and simple database language. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 97–105, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [BCG*87]
    J. Banerjee, H.-T. Chou, J.F. Garza, W. Kim, D. Woelk, and N. Ballou. Data model issues for object-oriented applications. ACM Trans. on Office Information Systems, 5(1):3–26, January 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [BK86]
    F. Bancilhon and S. Khoshafian. A calculus for complex objects. In Proc. ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [BLN86]
    C. Batini, M. Lenzerini, and S.B. Navathe. A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Computing Surveys, 18(4):323–364, December 1986.Google Scholar
  13. [Bor85]
    A. Borgida. Features of languages for the development of information systems at the conceptual level. IEEE Software, 2(1):63–72, January 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [CFP84]
    M.A. Casanova, R. Fagin, and C.H. Papadimitriou. Inclusion dependencies and their interaction with functional dependencies. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 28(1):29–59, 1984.Google Scholar
  15. [Che76]
    P.P. Chen. The entity-relationship model — toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 1(1):9–36, March 1976.Google Scholar
  16. [CM84]
    G. Copeland and D. Maier. Making Smalltalk a database system. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on the Management of Data, 1984.Google Scholar
  17. [Cod79]
    E.F. Codd. Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 4(4):397–434, December 1979.Google Scholar
  18. [CW85]
    L. Cardelli and P. Wegner. On understanding types, data abstraction and polymorphism. ACM Computing Surveys, 17(4):471–522, December 1985.Google Scholar
  19. [Dat81]
    C.J. Date. An Introduction to Database Systems, 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1981.Google Scholar
  20. [DH84]
    U. Dayal and H.Y. Hwang. View definition and generalization for database integration in a multidatabase system. IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering, SE-10(6):628–644, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. [GMW79]
    M.J. Gordon, A.J.R.G. Milner, and C.P. Wadsworth. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 78: Edinburgh LCF. Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
  22. [GZC87]
    R.H. Güting, R. Zicari, and D.M. Choy. An algebra for structured office documents. Technical Report RJ 5559 (56648), IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA, March 1987.Google Scholar
  23. [HK87]
    R. Hull and R. King. Semantic database modeling: Survey, applications, and research issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(3):201–260, September 1987.Google Scholar
  24. [HM81]
    M. Hammer and D. McLeod. Database description with SDM: a semantic database model. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 6(3):351–386, 1981.Google Scholar
  25. [HOT76]
    P. Hall, J. Owlett, and S. Todd. Relations and entities. In G.M. Nijssen, editor, Modelling in Data Base Management Systems, pages 201–220, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1976.Google Scholar
  26. [HS88]
    R. Hull and J. Su. On the expressive power of database queries with intermediate types. In Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 39–51, March 1988.Google Scholar
  27. [Hul86]
    R. Hull. Relative information capacity of simple relational schemata. SIAM Journal of Computing, 15(3):856–886, August 1986.Google Scholar
  28. [Hul87]
    R. Hull. A survey of theoretical research on typed complex database objects. In J. Paredaens, editor, Databases, pages 193–256, Academic Press (London), 1987.Google Scholar
  29. [HY84]
    R. Hull and C. K. Yap. The Format model: A theory of database organization. Journal of the ACM, 31(3):518–537, 1984.Google Scholar
  30. [JS82]
    B. Jaeschke and H. J. Schek. Remarks on the algebra of non first normal form relations. In Proc. ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1982.Google Scholar
  31. [KC86]
    S. Khoshafian and G. Copeland. Object identity. In Proc. ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, pages 406–416, 1986.Google Scholar
  32. [Ken79]
    W. Kent. Limitations of record-based information models. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 4(1):107–131, January 1979.Google Scholar
  33. [KP76]
    L. Kerschberg and J.E.S. Pacheco. A Functional Data Base Model. Technical Report, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, February 1976.Google Scholar
  34. [Kup85]
    G.M. Kuper. The Logical Data Model: A New Approach to Database Logic. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1985.Google Scholar
  35. [KV84]
    Gabriel M. Kuper and Moshe Y. Vardi. A new approach to database logic. In Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 86–96, 1984.Google Scholar
  36. [KV85]
    Gabriel M. Kuper and Moshe Y. Vardi. On the expressive power of the logical data model. In Proc. ACM Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, 1985.Google Scholar
  37. [KV88]
    G.M. Kuper and M.Y. Vardi. On the complexity of queries in the Logical Data Model. Technical Report, IBM Watson Research Center, Yorktown Hieghts, NY, 1988. to appear, Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Database Theory, Sept., 1988.Google Scholar
  38. [Mak77]
    A. Makinouchi. A consideration on normal form of not-necessarily-normalized relations in the relational data model. In Proc. of Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 447–453, 1977.Google Scholar
  39. [MBW80]
    J. Mylopoulos, P.A. Bernstein, and H.K.T. Wong. A language facility for designing database-intensive applications. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 5(2):185–207, June 1980.Google Scholar
  40. [MK85]
    D. McLeod and R. King. A database design mechodology and tool for information systems. ACM Trans. on Office Information Systems, 3(1):2–21, January 1985.Google Scholar
  41. [RKS84]
    M. A. Roth, H. F. Korth, and A. Silberschatz. Extended algebra and calculus for-1 NF Relational Databases. Technical Report TR-84-36, University of Texas at Austin, 1984. revised 1986; to appear, ACM Trans. on Database Systems (1988).Google Scholar
  42. [RV87]
    P. Richard and F. Velez. An object-oriented formal data model. In Proc. of Workshop on Data Base Programming Languages, Roscoff, France, September 1987.Google Scholar
  43. [Shi81]
    D. Shipman. The functional model and the data language DAPLEX. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 6(1):140–173, 1981.Google Scholar
  44. [SS77]
    J. M. Smith and D.C.P. Smith. Database abstractions: Aggregation and generalization. ACM Trans. on Database Systems, 2(2):105–133, 1977.Google Scholar
  45. [Var82]
    Moshe Y. Vardi. The complexity of relational query languages. In Proc. ACM SIGACT Symp. on the Theory of Computing, pages 137–146, 1982.Google Scholar
  46. [YHSL84]
    S.B. Yao, A.R. Hevner, Z. Shi, and D. Luo. FORMANAGER: An office forms management system. ACM Trans. on Office Information Systems, 2:235–262, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Hull
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations