Advertisement

A Comparative Analysis of View Integration Methodologies

  • M. Schrefl
Part of the Informatik-Fachberichte book series (INFORMATIK, volume 143)

Abstract

One of the most difficult tasks in logical database design is the analysis and the integration of the requirements different user groups have on the whole application. Once the requirements of each user group have been formally described by view database schemas, view integration methodologies are used to construct a conceptual database schema that can support all different user views.

Furthermore view integration methodologies are used in a domain which is similar to user view integration: in the design of multi database systems. There the problem is to define a single global view for several databases already in use.

Recently, several methodologies for user view integration and global view definition have been proposed in literature. The purpose of this paper is, first, to define comparison criteria for view integration methodologies and, secondly, to provide a comparative analysis of the features and main characteristics of the most important view integration methodologies with respect to the given criteria.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. /BAT84/.
    Batini, C. and M. Lenzerini: “A Methodology for Data Schema Integration in the Entity — Relationship Model.” In IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol.10, No. 6, 1984, pp. 650–664.Google Scholar
  2. /BIS86/.
    Biskup J. and B. Convent: “A formal view integration method.” ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. /BR084/.
    Brodie, M. and D. Ridjanovic: “On the Design and Specification of Database Transactions.” In: Brodie M., J. Mylopoulos, J. Schmidt (eds.): On Conceptual Modelling. Perspectives from Atrificial Intelligence, Databases, and Programming Languages Semantic Data Model Driven Design, Verification, Specification of Interactive Database Transactions. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984., pp.277–307.Google Scholar
  4. /CAS83/.
    Casanova, M. and V. Vidal: “Towards a sound view integration methodology”, ACM-Sigact– Sigmod Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1983, pp. 36–47.Google Scholar
  5. /CHE76/.
    Chen, P.P-S.: “The Entity-Relationship Model — Toward a unified view of data”, ACM Transactions on Database Systems Vo. 1, No. 1, 1976, pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
  6. /COD79/.
    Codd, E.F.: “Extending the Database Relational Model to Capture more Meaning.” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol.4, No. 4,1979, pp. 377–387.Google Scholar
  7. /CON86/.
    Convent, B.: “Unsolvable Problems Related to the View Integration Approach.”, International Conference of Database Theory, Roma, Italy, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. /DAY84/.
    Dayal U. and H. Wang: “View Definition and Generalization for Database Integration in a Multidatabase System.” In IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-10, No. 6, 1984, pp. 628–644.Google Scholar
  9. /ELM85/.
    Elmasri, R. and J. Weeldreyer, A. Hevner: “The category concept: An extension to the Entity — relationship model”. In Data & Knowledge Engineering 1, North Holland, 1985, pp. 75–116.Google Scholar
  10. /JAN85/.
    Jansen, C. G.: “A framework for representation.” in: Bubenko J. and O. Olive (eds.): Information Systems. Theoretical and Formal Aspects. North-Holland, Amsterdam 1985, pp.127–144Google Scholar
  11. /NAV86/.
    Navathe, S. and R. Elmasri, J. Larson: “Integrating User Views in Database Design. IEEE — Computer, Jan.1986Google Scholar
  12. /SHI81/.
    Shipman, D. W.: “The Functional Data Model and the Data Language DAPLEX. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1981, pp. 140–173.Google Scholar
  13. /SMI77/.
    Smith, J.M. and D.C.P. Smith: “Database Abstraction: Aggregation and Generalization.” ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1977, pp. 105–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. /SMl77b/.
    Smith, J.M. and D.C.P. Smith: Database Abstraction: Aggregation. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 20, No. 6 1977, pp. 405–433.Google Scholar
  15. /SCH84/.
    Schre, M. and A.M. Tjoa, R.R. Wagner: “Comparison criteria for semantic data models.” Proc. IEEE 1st International Conference on Data Engineering, Los Angeles, 1984, pp. 105–133.Google Scholar
  16. /SCH86/.
    Schek, H. and M. H. Scholl: “The Relational Model with Relation-Valued Attributes.” information Systems Vol. 11, No.2,1986, pp.137–147.Google Scholar
  17. /URB86/.
    Urban S. and L. Delcambre: “An analysis of the structural, dynamic and temporal aspects of semantic data models.” Proc. IEEE 2nd International Confernece on Data Engineering, Los Angeles, 1986, pp.382–389.Google Scholar
  18. /YA082/.
    Yao S.B. and V.E. Waddle, B.C. Housel: “View Modeling and Integration Using the Functional Data Model.” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol.8, No.6, 1982, pp.544–553.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Schrefl
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut fuer Angewandte Informatik und Systemanalyse Abteilung fuer Verteilte Datenbanken und ExpertensystemeTechnische Universitaet WienAustria

Personalised recommendations