Intentions of Operations – Characterization and Preservation
- 414 Downloads
Frequent changes of software requirements imply changes of the underlying database, like database schema, integrity constraints, as well as database transactions and programs. Tools like ERWin, DBMain and Silverrun help developers in applying these changes. Yet, the automatic derivation might pose a problem: Since the developer is not aware of the details of the derivation applications, the resulting programs might include contradictory actions. That is, intentions of programs might be reversed by the automatic derivation, resulting a different behavior than expected by the developer.
In this paper, a compile-time algorithm that achieves preservation of intentions is suggested. The algorithm revises a composite program into a program without contradictory actions. It is based on a fine analysis of effects, that is sensitive to computation paths. The output program is expressive and efficient since it interleaves run-time sensitive analysis of already reduced effects within the input program. The compile-time reduction of effects accounts for the efficiency; the run-time sensitivity of effects accounts for the expressiveness. The novelty of the proposed approach is in combining static and dynamic analysis in a way that run-time overhead is minimized without sacrificing the expressivity of the resulting program.
KeywordsIntegrity Constraint Computation Tree Database Schema Computation Path Deductive Database
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Dijkstra, E.W., Scholten, C.S.: Predicate calculus and program semantics. In: Texts and Monographs in Computer Science, Springer, Heidelberg (1989)Google Scholar
- 2.Schewe, K.D., Thalheim, B.: Limitations of Rule Triggering Systems for Integrity Maintenance in the context of Transition Specifications. Acta Cybernetica (1998)Google Scholar
- 3.Balaban, M., Jurk, S.: Improving Integrity Constraint Enforcement by Extended Rules and Dependency Graphs. In: Proc. 22th Conf. on DEXA (2001)Google Scholar
- 4.Balaban, M., Jurk, S.: Intention of Updates - Characterization and Preservation. Technical report, Ben-Gurion University, Israel and BTU Cottbus, Germany (2002)Google Scholar
- 5.Bry, F.: Intensional updates: Abduction via deduction. In: Proc. 7th Conf. on Logi Programming (1990)Google Scholar
- 7.Fraternali, P., Paraboschi, S., Tanca, L.: Automatic Rule Generation for Constraints Enforcement in Active Databases. WICS. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)Google Scholar
- 8.Pastor, J.A.: Extending the synthesis of update transaction programs to handle existential rules in deductive databases. In: Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases, pp. 189–218 (1994)Google Scholar
- 9.Pastor-Collado, J.A., Olive, A.: Supporting transaction design in conceptual modelling of information systems. In: Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, pp. 40–53 (1995)Google Scholar
- 10.Plexousakis, D., Mylopoulos, J.: Accommodating integrity constraints during database design. LNCS, vol. 1057. springer, Hedielberg (1996)Google Scholar
- 12.Lee, S.Y., Ling, T.W.: Further Improvement on Integrity Constraint Checking for Stratisfiable Deductive Databases. In: Proc. 22th Conf. on VLDB (1996)Google Scholar
- 13.Widom, J., Ceri, S.: Deriving production rules for constraint maintenance. In: Proc. 16th Conf. on VLDB, pp. 566–577 (1990)Google Scholar
- 14.Widom, J., Ceri, S.: Active Database Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar