Abstract
Consistency enforcement aims at systematically modifying a database program such that the result is consistent with respect to a specified set of integrity constraints. This modification may be done at compile-time or at run-time. The commonly known run-time approach uses rule triggering systems (RTSs). It has been shown that these systems cannot solve the problem in general.
As an alternative greatest consistent specializations (GCSs) have been studied. This approach requires the modified program specification to be a maximal consistent diminution of the original one with respect to some partial order. The chosen order is operational specialization. On this basis it is possible to derive a commutativity result and a compositionality result. The first one enables step-by-step enforcement for sets of constraints. The second one reduces the problem to providing the GCSs just for basic operations, whereas for complex programs the GCS can be easily determined. The approach turns out to be well-founded since the GCS for such complex programs is effectively computable if we require loops to be bounded.
Despite its theoretical merits the GCS approach is still too coarse. This leads to the problem of modifying the chosen specialization order and to relax the requirement that the result should be unique. One idea is to exploit the fact that operational specialization is equivalent to the preservation of a set of transition invariants. In this case a reasonable order arises from a slight modification of this set, in which case we talk of a maximal consistent effect preserver (MCE). However, a strict theory of MCEs is still outstanding.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. Bell, M. Machover. A Course in Mathematical Logic. North-Holland 1977.
S. Ceri, P. Fraternali, S. Paraboschi, L. Tanca: Automatic Generation of Production Rules for Integrity Maintenance. ACM TODS 19(3), 1994, 367–422.
I. A. Chen, R. Hull, D. McLeod. An Execution Model for Limited Ambiguity Rules and its Applications to Derived Data Update. ACM ToDS 20, 1995, 365–413.
L. Console, M. L. Sapino, D. Theseider. The Role of Abduction in Database View Updating. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 4, 1995, 261–280.
H. Decker. One Abductive Logic Programming Procedure for two Kinds of Update. Proc. DYNAMICS’97, 1997.
M. Dekhtyar, A. Dikovsky, S. Dudakov, N. Spyratos. Maximal Expansions of Database Updates. In K.-D. Schewe, B. Thalheim (Eds.). Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, 72–87. Springer LNCS 1762, 2000.
M. Gertz. Specifying Reactive Integrity Control for Active Databases. Proc. RIDE’ 94, 1994, 62–70.
S. Link. Eine Theorie der Konsistenzerzwingung auf der Basis arithmetischer Logik. M.Sc. Thesis (in German). TU Clausthal 2000.
S. Link, K.-D. Schewe. An Arithmetic Theory of Consistency Enforcement. Acta Cybernetica. vol. 15. 2002. 379–416.
J. Lobo, G. Trajcevski. Minimal and Consistent Evolution in Knowledge Bases. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 7, 1997, 117–146.
M. Makkai. Admissible Sets and Infinitary Logic. In J. Barwise (Ed). Handbook of Mathematical Logic. North Holland, Studies in Logic and Foundations of Mathematics. vol. 90: 233–281. 1977.
E. Mayol, E. Teniente. Dealing with Modification Requests During View Updating and Integrity Constraint Maintenance. In K.-D. Schewe, B. Thalheim (Eds.). Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems, 192–212. Springer LNCS 1762, 2000.
G. Nelson. A Generalization of Dijkstra’s Calculus. ACM TOPLAS. vol. 11 (4): 517–561. 1989.
K.-D. Schewe. Consistency Enforcement in Entity-Relationship and Object-Oriented Models. Data and Knowledge Engineering 28, 1998, 121–140.
K.-D. Schewe. Fundamentals of Consistency Enforcement. In H. Jaakkola, H. Kangassalo, E. Kawaguchi (eds.). Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases X: 275–291. IOS Press 1999.
K.-D. Schewe, B. Thalheim. Towards a Theory of Consistency Enforcement. Acta Informatica. vol. 36: 97–141. 1999.
K.-D. Schewe, B. Thalheim. Limitations of Rule Triggering Systems for Integrity Maintenance in the Context of Transition Specifications. Acta Cybernetica. vol. 13: 277–304. 1998.
K.-D. Schewe, B. Thalheim, J. Schmidt, I. Wetzel. Integrity Enforcement in Object Oriented Databases. In U. Lipeck, B. Thalheim (eds.). Modelling Database Dynamics: 174–195. Workshops in Computing. Springer 1993.
E. Teniente, A. Olivé. Updating Knowledge Bases while Maintaining their Consistency. The VLDB Journal 4, 1995, 193–241.
B. Wüthrich. On Updates and Inconsistency Repairing in Knowledge Bases. Proc. ICDE’93, 1993, 608–615.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Link, S. (2003). Consistency Enforcement in Databases. In: Bertossi, L., Katona, G.O.H., Schewe, KD., Thalheim, B. (eds) Semantics in Databases. SiD 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2582. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36596-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36596-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00957-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36596-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive