Advertisement

Modeling object behavior: To use methods or rules or both?

  • Gerti Kappel
  • Michael Schrefl
Object-Oriented Databases 5
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1134)

Abstract

Active object-oriented databases provide two means to model behavior of objects: (1) methods and (2) rules. In many cases methods and rules can be used interchangeably to achieve the same effect. If clear design guidelines are missing and comparable situations are realized differently, information systems can become hard to understand and hard to maintain. Moreover, it is known that large sets of rules tend to lead to non-transparent systems. This paper shows that high-level semantic modeling can significantly help to tackle the rule-method problem.

Keywords

Integrity Constraint Composite Event Database State Business Rule Database Operation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mikael Berndtsson. ACOOD: An Approach to an Active Object-Oriented DBMS. Master's thesis, University of Skövde, Department of Computer Science, Box 408, S-541 28 Skövde, Sweden, September 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Bichler and M. Schrefl. Active Object-Oriented Database Design Using Active Object/Behavior Diagrams. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering (RIDE'94). IEEE, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Blakely, P. Larson, and F. Tompa. Efficiently Updating Materialized Views. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, pages 61–71, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving production rules for constraint maintenance. In D. McLeod, R. Sacks-Davis, and H. Schek, editors, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 566–577. Morgan Kaufmann, August 1990.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Chakravathy and D. Mishra. Snoop: An expressive event specification language for active databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 14(1):1–26, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Ellis. Workflow. Tutorial to the 9th Austrian-Hungarian Informatics Conference, October 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Gatziu and K. R. Dittrich. Events in an Active Object-Oriented Database System. In N. W. Paton and M. H. Williams, editors, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Rules in Database Systems. Springer, September 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. H. Gehani and H. V. Jagadish. Ode as an Active Database: Constraints and Triggers. In G.M. Lohmann, A. Sernadas, and R. Camps, editors, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 327–336. Morgan Kaufmann, September 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Hanson. A Performance Analysis of View Materialization Strategies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD Conference on Management of Data, pages 440–453, May 1987.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Herbst, G. Knolmayer, T. Myrach, and M. Schlesinger. The specification of business rules: A comparison of selected methodologies. Technical Report 44, Universität Bern, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, May 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Hull and R. King. Semantic Database Modeling: Survey, Applications, and Research Issues. ACM Computing Surveys, 10(2), 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Kappel, S. Rausch-Schott, W. Retschitzegger, and S. Vieweg. TriGS: Making a Passive Object-Oriented Database System Active. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, 7(4):40–51, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gerti Kappel and Michael Schrefl. Object-Behavior Diagrams. In Proceedings ot the 7th International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 530–539. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Lang, W. Obermair, and M. Schrefl. Situation Diagrams. In Proceedings DEXA 1996. Springer, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    V. M. Markowitz. Referential integrity revisited: An object-oriented perspective. In D. McLeod, R. Sacks-Davis, and H. Schek, editors, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pages 578–589. Morgan Raufmann, August 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. Meyer. Eiffel: The Language. Object-Oriented Series. Prentice Hall, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Mylopoulos, P. Bernstein, and H.K.T. Wong. A language facility for designing database-intensive applications. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 5(2):185–207, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. W. Paton, O. Diaz, and M. L. Barja. Combining Active Rules and Metaclasses for Enhanced Extensibility in Object-Oriented Systems. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 10:45–63, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    N.W. Paton, O. Diaz, M.H. Williams, J. Campin, A. Dinn, and A. Jaime. Dimensions of active behaviour. In N.W. Paton and M.H. Williams, editors, Rules in Database Systems: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, pages 40–57. Springer, September 1993.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S.D. Urban, A.P. Karadimce, and R.B. Nannapaneni. The implementation and evaluation of integrity maintenance rules in an object-oriented database. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Data Engineering, pages 565–572, February 1992.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Wirfs-Brock and B. Wilkerson. Object-oriented design: A responsibility-driven approach. Special Issue of SIGPLAN Notices, 24(10):323–343, October 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerti Kappel
    • 1
  • Michael Schrefl
    • 2
  1. 1.Abt. für InformationsystemeInstitut für InformatikDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik Data & Knowledge EngineeringJohannes Kepler Universität LinzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations