The Development of a Knowledge-Based Database Transaction Design Assistant

  • X. Y. Wang
  • N. J. Fiddian
  • W. A. Gray
Conference paper


In this paper, we describe the development of KBTDA, a knowledge-based database transaction design assistant, with the emphasis on the types of knowledge it contains, i.e. its functionality. When applied to a database application, KBTDA first derives, with the involvement of the database designer, specific knowledge about the application. It then accepts a user-designed transaction, converts it into internal form (an And/Or tree) and performs the following processing on the transaction in that form: optimisation, safety verification, amendment and analysis. All this processing, as well as the process of deriving specific knowledge, is done interactively with end-users, and this interaction is assisted by a limited explanation/advice facility. The resulting transaction is safe, and may have been improved with respect to efficiency and reliability.


Relational Database Integrity Constraint Database Transaction Semantic Error Integrity Check 
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]
    S.Abiteboul and V. Vianu. Transactions in Relational Databases (Preliminary Report). Proceedings of the 10th VLDB Conference, 1984, pp.46–56.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M.Bouzeghoub, G. Gardarin and E. Metais. Database Design Tools: An Expert System Approach. Proceedings of the 11th VLDB Conference, 1985, pp. 82–95.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. L. Brodie and D. Ridjanovic. On the Design and Specification of Database Transactions. in On Conceptual modelling. Edited by M.L.Brodie, J.Mylopoulos and T.W.Schmidt, Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp. 277–306.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. A. Casanova and P. A. Bernstein. A Formal System for Reasoning about Programs Accessing a Relational Database. ACM Transactions on Programming, 1980, Vol. 2, pp. 386–414.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M.A.Casanova, L.Tucherman and A.L.Furtado. Enforcing Inclusion Dependencies and Referential Integrity. Proceedings of the 14th VLDB Conference, 1988, pp. 38–49.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S.Chakravarthy, J. Grant and J.Minker. Logic-based Approach to Semantic Query Optimization ACM TODS, 1990, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 162–207.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C.J.Date. An Introduction to Database Systems. Vol. I, Fourth Edition, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    R. Elmasri, J. Weeldreyer and A. Hevner. The category concept: An extension to the entity relationship model. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1985, Vol. 1, pp. 75–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    H. Gaillaire, J. Minker and J-M. Nicolas. Logic and Databases: A Deductive Approach. ACM Computing Surveys, 1984, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 153–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Gardarin and M. Melkanoff: Proving Consistency of Database Transactions. Proceedings of the 5th VLDB Conference, 1979, pp. 291–298.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    L. J. Henschen, W. W. McCune and S. A. Naqvi. Compiling Constraint Checking Programs from First-Order Formulas. in Advances in Database Theory, Vol 2. Edited by Gallaire,Minker and Nicolas, Plenum Press, N.Y., 1984, pp. 145–169.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M.M.Hammer and S.K. Sarin. Efficient Monitoring of Database Assertions. Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD Conference, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    T.Hsu and T.Imielinski. Integrity Checking for Multiple Updates. Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD Conference, 1985, pp. 152–168.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J.J. King. QUIST: A System for Semantic Query Optimization in Relational Databases. Proceedings of the 7th VLDB Conference, 1981, pp. 510–517.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Z. Manna. Mathematical Theory of Computation. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    W.W.McCune and L.J.Henschen. Maintaining State Constraints in Relational Databases: A Proof Theoretic Basis. JACM, 1989, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 46–68.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J-M. Nicolas. Logic for Improving Integrity Checking in Relational Databases. Acta Informatica, 1982, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 227–253.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    X.Qian. An Effective Method for Integrity Constraint Simplification IEEE DE 4, 1988, pp. 338–345.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    X.Qian. Synthesizing Database Transactions. Proceedings of the 16th VLDB Conference, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    T.Sheard and D.Stemple. Coping with Complexity in Automated Reasoning about Database Systems Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD Conference, 1985, pp. 426–435.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    T.Sheard and D.Stemple. Automatic Verification of Database Transaction Safety. ACM TODS, 1989, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 322–369.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    D. Stemple, S. Mazumdar and T. Sheard. On the Modes and Meaning of Feedback to Transaction Designers. Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD Conference, 1987, pp. 374–386.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    V.C.Storey and R.C.Goldstein. A Methodology for Creating User Views in Database Design. ACM TODS, 1988, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 305–338.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    X. Wang, W.Gray and N.Fiddian. Semantic Transaction Optimization in Relational Databases. Proceedings of the 8th British National Conference On Databases, York, England, July 1990, pp. 108–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • X. Y. Wang
    • 1
  • N. J. Fiddian
    • 1
  • W. A. Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing MathematicsUniversity of Wales College of CardiffCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations