Characterising relational view updates using relative information capacity
Article No.: 33, Pages 1 - 10
Abstract
In 2013, Chris Date published a book about the view update problem in the context of the Relational Model. He presented several detailed examples of different varieties of view updates and characterised their behaviour, in the process deriving a set of principles for updating views based on the notion of information equivalence of view schemas. In this paper we discuss work in progress that examines how Date's operational definition of information equivalence can be formally characterised using Hull's concept of relative information capacity. As a proof of concept, we use an extension of Miller's schema intension graph formalism to model the information equivalence of Date's restriction view example.
References
[1]
F. Bancilhon and N. Spyratos. Update semantics of relational views. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 6(4):557--575, Dec. 1981.
[2]
A. Behrend and R. Manthey. A transformation-based approach to view updating in stratifiable deductive databases. In S. Hartmann and G. Kern-Isberner, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems (FoIKS 2008), volume 4932 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 253--271, Pisa, Italy, Feb. 11--15 2008. Springer.
[3]
L. Caroprese, I. Trubitsyna, M. Truszczyński, and E. Zumpano. The view-update problem for indefinite databases. In L. F. del Cerro, A. Herzig, and J. Mengin, editors, Proceedings of the Thirteenth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA 2012), volume 7519 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 134--146, Toulouse, France, Sept. 26--28 2012.
[4]
E. F. Codd. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Communications of the ACM, 13(6):377--387, June 1970.
[5]
E. F. Codd. Relational completeness of data base sublanguages. In R. Rustin, editor, Data Base Systems, Courant Computer Science Symposia Series 6, pages 65--98. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 1972.
[6]
E. F. Codd. Recent investigations in relational data base systems. In J. L. Rosenfeld, editor, Proceedings of the IFIP Congress '74 (Information Processing '74), pages 1017--1021, Stockholm, Sweden, Aug. 5--10 1974. North-Holland.
[7]
L. Console, M. L. Sapino, and D. T. Dupré. The role of abduction in database view updating. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 4(3):261--280, May 1995.
[8]
S. S. Cosmadakis and C. H. Papadimitriou. Updates of relational views. Journal of the ACM, 31(4):742--760, Sept. 1984.
[9]
C. J. Date. SQL and Relational Theory: How to Write Accurate SQL Code. Theory in Practice. O'Reilly, second edition, 2012.
[10]
C. J. Date. View Updating & Relational Theory: Solving the View Update Problem. Theory in Practice. O'Reilly, 2013.
[11]
G. Gottlob, P. Paolini, and R. Zicari. Properties and update semantics of consistent views. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 13(4):486--524, Dec. 1988.
[12]
S. J. Hegner. An order-based theory of updates for closed database views. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 40(1--2):63--125, Jan. 2004.
[13]
R. Hull. Relative information capacity of simple relational database schemata. SIAM Journal on Computing, 15(3):856--886, Aug. 1986.
[14]
A. M. Keller. Algorithms for translating view updates to database updates for views involving selections, projections, and joins. In Proceedings of the Fourth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS '85), pages 154--163, Portland, Oregon, USA, Mar. 25--27 1985. ACM.
[15]
A. M. Keller. The role of semantics in translating view updates. IEEE Computer, 19(1):63--73, Jan. 1986.
[16]
A. M. Keller. Comments on Bancilhon and Spyratos' "Update semantics and relational views". ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 12(3):521--523, Sept. 1987.
[17]
Y. Kotidis, D. Srivastava, and Y. Velegrakis. Updates through views: A new hope. In L. Liu, A. Reuter, K.-Y. Whang, and J. Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE 2006), page 2, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 3--8 Apr. 2006. IEEE Computer Society.
[18]
D. Laurent, J. Lechtenbörger, N. Spyratos, and G. Vossen. Monotonic complements for independent data warehouses. The VLDB Journal, 10(4):295--315, Dec. 2001.
[19]
J. Lechtenbörger. The impact of the constant complement approach towards view updating. In F. Neven, C. Beeri, and T. Milo, editors, Proceedings of the Twenty-Second ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 2003), pages 49--55, San Diego, California, USA, June 9--12 2003. ACM.
[20]
J. Lechtenbörger and G. Vossen. On the computation of relational view complements. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 28(2):175--208, June 2003.
[21]
H. Liefke and S. B. Davidson. View maintenance for hierarchical semistructured data. In Y. Kambayashi, M. K. Mohania, and A. M. Tjoa, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery (DaWaK 2000), volume 1874 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 114--125, London, UK, Sept. 4--6 2000. Springer.
[22]
R. Mantri and J. Feng. Data semantic conflicts: An approach based on the notion of 'information bearing capability'. Nirma University Journal of Engineering and Technology, 1(2):26--30, July--Dec. 2010.
[23]
Y. Masunaga. A relational database view update translation mechanism. In U. Dayal, G. Schlageter, and L. H. Seng, editors, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB 1984), pages 309--320, Singapore, Aug. 27--31 1984. Morgan Kaufmann.
[24]
E. Mayol and E. Teniente. Consistency preserving updates in deductive databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 47(1):61--103, Oct. 2003.
[25]
R. J. Miller. Managing Structural Heterogeneity. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1994.
[26]
R. J. Miller, Y. E. Ioannidis, and R. Ramakrishnan. The use of information capacity in schema integration and translation. In R. Agrawal, S. Baker, and D. A. Bell, editors, Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pages 120--133, Dublin, Ireland, Aug. 24--27 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.
[27]
R. J. Miller, Y. E. Ioannidis, and R. Ramakrishnan. Schema equivalence in heterogeneous systems: Bridging theory and practice. Information Systems, 19(1):3--31, Jan. 1994.
[28]
R. J. Miller, Y. E. Ioannidis, and R. Ramakrishnan. Schema intension graphs: A formal model for the study of schema equivalence. Technical report CS-TR-94-1185, Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, Jan. 1994.
[29]
W.-W. Pan and W.-P. Yang. An object model at conceptual level to support updatable views on object-oriented databases. Information Sciences, 95(1--2):29--48, Nov. 1996.
[30]
X. Qian. Correct schema transformations. Technical report SRI-CSL-95-08, Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International, Menlo Park, California, USA, July 1995.
[31]
M. H. Scholl, C. Laasch, and M. Tresch. Updatable views in object-oriented databases. In C. Delobel, M. Kifer, and Y. Masunaga, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD'91), volume 566 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 189--207, Munich, Germany, Dec. 16--18 1991. Springer.
[32]
H. Shu. Using constraint satisfaction for view update. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 15(2):147--173, Sept. 2000.
[33]
L. Wang, E. A. Rundensteiner, and M. Mani. Updating XML views published over relational databases: Towards the existence of a correct update mapping. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 58(3):236--298, Sept. 2006.
[34]
X. Wang, J. Feng, and H. Xu. A study of the schema intension graphs model (SIG) approach to the relative information capacity (RIC) of data schemas. Computing and Information Systems, 9(3):article 9, Oct. 2005.
[35]
K. Xu, J. Feng, and M. Crowe. Defining the notion of 'information content' and reasoning about it in a database. Knowledge and Information Systems, 18(1):29--59, Jan. 2009.
- Characterising relational view updates using relative information capacity
Recommendations
Constraint Preserving Transformation from Relational Schema to XML Schema
XML has become the standard for publishing and exchanging data on the Web. However, most business data is managed and will remain to be managed by relational database management systems. As such, there is an increasing need to efficiently and accurately ...
Relative information capacity of simple relational database schemata
PODS '84: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on Principles of database systemsFundamental notions of relative information capacity between database structures are studied in the context of the relational model. Four progressively less restrictive formal definitions of "dominance" between pairs of relational database schemata are ...
From XML view updates to relational view updates: old solutions to a new problem
VLDB '04: Proceedings of the Thirtieth international conference on Very large data bases - Volume 30This paper addresses the question of updating relational databases through XML views. Using query trees to capture the notions of selection, projection, nesting, grouping, and heterogeneous sets found throughout most XML query languages, we show how XML ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
January 2017
615 pages
ISBN:9781450347686
DOI:10.1145/3014812
Copyright © 2017 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 31 January 2017
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
ACSW 2017
Acceptance Rates
ACSW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 78 of 156 submissions, 50%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 204 of 424 submissions, 48%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 39Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)3
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in