Semantics of Objectified XML Constraints

  • Suad Alagić
  • David Briggs
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2921)


The core of a model theory for a functional object-oriented data model extended with XML-like types is presented. The object-oriented component of this integrated paradigm is based on Featherweight Java and XML is represented by regular expression types. The main contributions are in extending both with general logic-based constraints and establishing results on schema and database evolution by inheritance that respects database integrity requirements. The paper shows that formally defined semantics of this integrated paradigm does indeed exist and in fact may be constructed in a model-theoretic fashion. The generality of the developed model theory and its relative independence of a particular logic basis makes it applicable to a variety of approaches to XML (as well as object-oriented) constraints. A pleasing property of this model theory is that it offers specific requirements for semantically acceptable evolution of these sophisticated schemas and their databases.


Object Type Integrity Constraint Class Signature Document Type Database Schema 
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. 1.
    Alagić, S.: Institutions: Integrating objects, XML and databases. Information and Software Technology 44, 207–216 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alagić, S., Bernstein, P.A.: A model theory for generic schema management. In: Ghelli, G., Grahne, G. (eds.) DBPL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2397, pp. 228–246. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alagić, S., Kouznetsova, S.: Behavioral compatibility of self-typed theories. In: Magnusson, B. (ed.) ECOOP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2374, pp. 585–608. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benedikt, M., Chee-Yong, C., Fan, W., Freire, J., Rastog, R.: Capturing both types and constraints in data integration. In: ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidson, S., Fan, W., Hara, C., Jing, Q.: Propagating XML constraints to relations. In: The 19th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fan, W., Libkin, L.: On XML constraints in the presence of DTDs. In: Proceedings of ACM PODS, pp. 114–125 (2001); also in Journal of the ACM 49(3), 368–406 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fan, W., Simeon, J.: Integrity constraints for XML. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 66, 254–291 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buneman, P., Davidson, S., Fan, W., Hara, C., Tan, W.-C.: Reasoning about keys for XML. In: Ghelli, G., Grahne, G. (eds.) DBPL 2001. LNCS, vol. 2397, pp. 133–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cattell, R.G.G., Barry, D., Berler, M., Eastman, J., Jordan, D., Russell, C., Schadow, O., Stanienda, T., Velez, F.: The Object Data Standard: ODMG 3.0. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goguen, J.: Types as theories. In: Reed, G.M., Roscoe, A.W., Wachter, R.F. (eds.) Topology and Category Theory in Computer Science, pp. 357–390. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gapeyev, V., Pierce, B.: Regular object types. In: Cardelli, L. (ed.) ECOOP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2743, pp. 151–175. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hosoya, H., Vouillon, J., Pierce, B.: Regular expression types for XML. In: Proceedings of ICFP, pp. 11–22 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Igarashi, A., Pierce, B., Wadler, P.: Featherweight Java: A minimal calculus for Java and GJ. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2001, and in ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 23(3) (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    JDOM documentation,
  16. 16.
    Kuper, G.M., Simeon, J.: Subsumption for XML types. In: Van den Bussche, J., Vianu, V. (eds.) ICDT 2001. LNCS, vol. 1973, pp. 331–345. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liskov, B., Wing, J.M.: A behavioral notion of subtyping. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 16, 1811–1841 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meijer, E., Schulte, W.: Unifying tables, objects and documents, Microsoft Research (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Milo, T., Suciu, D., Vianu, V.: Typechecking for XML transformers. Journal of Computer and Systems Sciences 66, 66–67 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suad Alagić
    • 1
  • David Briggs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Southern MainePortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations