Rationale and Design of Serendip, a Database Programming Language

  • Michel Adiba
  • Christophe Lécluse
  • Philippe Richard
Conference paper


In this paper, we propose a database programming language. This language, named Serendip is designed in order to provide features from semantic data models and from programming languages. From the programming languages world, we took the notions of abstract data types and general computing. From the semantic data models, we took the declarative way of specifying data, the integrity constraints and the most important relationships between data (ISA, classification and membership).


Integrity Constraint Abstract Type Abstract Data Type Range Constraint Semantic Data Model 
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 R. Hull. IFO: A Formal Semantic Database Model. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 12 (4), December 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. R. Abrial. Data Semantics. Data Base Management, 1974.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Adiba and C. Collet. Management of Complex Objects as Dynamic Forms. In VLDB International Conference, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    A. Albano, L. Cardelli, and R. Orsini. Galileo: A Strongly Typed, Interactive Conceptual Language. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 10 (2), June 1985.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. Arango. Toolboxes: a Practical Approach to Reusability in an Object-Oriented Environment. Technical Report, GIP Altaïr, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Atkinson and P. Buneman. Types and Persistence in Database Programming Languages. ACM Computing Surveys, June 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Atkinson, K. Chisholm, and W. Cockshott. PS-algol: an Algol with a Persistent Heap. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 17 (7), July 1981.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    C. Beeri. Formal Models for Object-Oriented Databases. In DOOD 89, December 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    C. Beeri, S. Naqvi, R. Ramakrishan, O. Schmueli, and S. Tsur. Sets and Negation in a Logic and Database Language (LDL1). In ACM PODS International Conference, 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Copeland and D. Maier. Making Sma.11talk a Database System. In ACM SIGMOD International Conference, June 1984.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Hull and R. King. Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications and Research Issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 19 (3), September 1987.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. Kim, J. Banerjee, H. T. Chou, J. F. Garza, and D. Woelk. Composite Object Support in an Object-Oriented Database System. In ACM SIGMOD International Conference, May 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. King and D. McLeod. A methodology and Tool for Designing Office Information Systems. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Lécluse and P. Richard. The 02 Database Programming Language. In VLDB International Conference, August 1989.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    B. Liskov and A. Snyder. Exception Handling in CLU. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-5(6), November 1979.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. Liskov and S. Zilles. Programming with Abstract Data Types. ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 9 (4), 1974.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. W. Schmidt and M. Mall. Pascal/R Report. Technical Report 66, Fachbereich Informatik, Université de Hambourg, July 1980.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. W. Shipman. The Functional Data Model and the Data Language DAPLEX. ACM Transactions on Database Sÿstems, 6 (1), March 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Adiba
    • 1
  • Christophe Lécluse
    • 2
  • Philippe Richard
    • 2
  1. 1.LGI-IMAGGrenoble CedexFrance
  2. 2.Altaïrle Chesnay CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations