Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consolidation of database check constraints

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Software & Systems Modeling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Independent modeling of various modules of an information system (IS), and consequently database subschemas, may result in formal or semantic conflicts between the modules being modeled. Such conflicts may cause collisions between the integrated database schema of a whole IS and the modeled subschemas. In our previous work, we have proposed criteria and algorithms for identifying and resolving such conflicts so as to provide a consolidation of database subschemas with the integrated database schema with respect to various database concepts, such as domains, relation schemes, primary key constraints and referential integrity constraints. In this paper, we propose a new approach and algorithms for identifying conflicts and testing consolidation of subschemas with the integrated database schema against check constraints. The proposed approach is based on satisfiability modulo theory (SMT) solvers. Hereby, we propose the integration of SMT solvers into our MDSD tool, aimed at supporting a database schema integration process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luković, I., Mogin, P., Pavićević, J., Ristić, S.: An approach to developing complex database schemas using form types. Softw. Pract. Exp. 37, 1621–1656 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ristić, S.: Problem Research of Database Subschemas Consolidation. Dissertation, University of Novi Sad, Serbia (2003)

  3. Luković, I., Ristić, S., Mogin, P., Pavićević, J.: Database schema integration process a methodology and aspects of its applying. Novi Sad J. Math. 36, 115–150 (2006). ISSN: 1450-5444

  4. Luković, I., Mogin, P.: Lossless joins of relational database views. Rev. Res. 26, 49–73, Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad (1996). ISSN: 1450-5444

  5. Čeliković, M., Luković, I., Aleksić, S., Ivančević, V.: A MOF based meta-model and a concrete DSL syntax of IIS*Case PIM concepts. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 9, 1075–1103 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS120203034C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Luković, I.: Automated Generation of Relational Database Subschemas Using the Form Types. MSc thesis, University of Belgrade, Serbia (1993)

  7. Obrenović, N., Luković, I.: An approach to consolidation of database check constraints. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Information Society Technology and Management (ICIST), pp. 210–215 (2014). https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4111.0082

  8. CVC3 home page. http://www.cs.nyu.edu/acsys/cvc3/. Accessed 1 June 2016

  9. Date, C.J., Darwen, H.: Types and the Relational Model. The Third Manifesto, 3rd edn. Addison Wesley, Reading (2006)

  10. Elmasri, R., Navathe, B. S.: Database Systems: Models, Languages, Design and Application Programming, 6th ed. Pearson Global Edition (2011). ISBN 978-0-13-214498-8

  11. Ristić, S., Aleksić, S., Čeliković, M., Luković, I.: Generic and standard database constraint meta-models. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 11(2), 679–696 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS140216037R

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mogin, P., Luković, I., Govedarica, M.: Database Design Principles, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences and MP Stylos, Novi Sad, Serbia (2004). ISBN 86-80249-81-5

  13. Ristić, S., Aleksić, S., Čeliković, M., Luković, I.: Meta-modeling of inclusion dependency constraints. In: Proceedings of the 6th Balkan Conference in Informatics (BCI’13), pp. 114–121, ACM, New York, NY, USA (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2490257.2490265

  14. Luković, I., Popović, A., Mostić, J., Ristić, S.: A tool for modeling form type check constraints and complex functionalities of business applications. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 7, 359–385 (2010). https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS1002359L

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Beeri, C., Bernstein, P.A.: Computational problems related to the design of normal form relational schemas. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4(1), 30–59 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1145/320064.320066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Obrenović, N., Aleksić, S., Popović, A., Luković, I.: Transformations of check constraint PIM specifications. Comput. Inform. 31, 1045–1079 (2012)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Mendelson, E.: Introduction to Mathematical Logic, 4th edn. Chapman & Hall, London (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Cook, S.A.: The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. In: Proceedings of 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 151–158 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1145/800157.805047

  19. Marić, F.: Formalization and implementation of modern SAT solvers. J. Autom. Reason. 43, 81–119 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-009-9127-8

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. De Moura, L., Bjørner, N.: Satisfiability modulo theories: an appetizer. In: Oliveira, M.V., Woodcock, J. (eds.) Formal Methods: Foundations and Applications, pp. 23–36. Springer, Berlin (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10452-7_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Barrett, C.W., Sebastiani, R., Seshia, S.A., Tinelli, C.: Satisfiability modulo theories. In: Biere, A., Heule, M., Van Maaren, H., Walsch, T. (eds.) Handbook of Satisfiability, pp. 825–885. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Prover 9 web page. http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/prover9/. Accessed 1 June 2016

  23. Vampire’s home page. http://www.vprover.org/. Accessed 1 June 2016

  24. Kovacs, L., Voronkov, A.: First-order theorem proving and VAMPIRE. In: Proceedings of 25th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV), pp. 1–35 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39799-8_1

  25. Frühwirth, T.: Welcome to constraint handling rules. In: Schrijvers, T., Frühwirth, T. (eds.) Constraint Handling Rules, pp. 1–15. Springer, Berlin (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92243-8_1

    Google Scholar 

  26. Frühwirth, T.: Theory and practice of constraint handling rules. J. Logic Program. 37, 95–138 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-1066(98)10005-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Frühwirth, T., Abdennadher, S.: Essentials of Constraint Programming. Springer, New York (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05138-2

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. MathSAT 5 home page. http://mathsat.fbk.eu/. Accessed 1 June 2016

  29. SMT-COMP 2012, competition results. http://smt-exec.org/. Accessed 1 June 2016

  30. Cok, D.R.: The SMT-LIB v2 language and tools: a tutorial. http://smtlib.github.io/jSMTLIB/SMTLIBTutorial.pdf (2013). Accessed 1 June 2016

  31. Barrett, C., Stump, A., Tinelli, C.: The SMT-LIB standard version 2.0. http://smtlib.cs.uiowa.edu/papers/smt-lib-reference-v2.0-r12.09.09.pdf (2012). Accessed 1 June 2016

  32. CVC3 user manual. http://www.cs.nyu.edu/acsys/cvc3/doc/user_doc.html. Accessed 1 June 2016

  33. Batini, C., Lenzerini, M., Navathe, S.B.: A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Comput. Surv. 18, 323–364 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1145/27633.27634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rahm, E., Bernstein, P.A.: A survey of approaches to automatic schema matching. VLDB J. 10, 334–350 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s007780100057

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Li, W.-S., Clifton, C.: SEMINT: a tool for identifying attribute correspondences in heterogeneous databases using neural networks. Data Knowl. Eng. 33, 49–84 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-023X(99)00044-0

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Lee, M.-L., Ling, T.W.: Resolving constraint conflicts in the integration of entity-relationship schemas. In: Proceedings of Conceptual Modeling—ER’97, 16th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, pp. 394–407 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63699-4_32

  37. Garcia-Molina, H., Ullman, J.D., Widom, J.: Database Systems: The Complete Book, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall Press, Upper Saddle River (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: UMLtoCSP: a tool for the formal verification of UML/OCL models using constraint programming. In: Proceedings of 22nd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pp. 547–548 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1321631.1321737

  39. Cabot, J., Clarisó, R., Riera, D.: Verification of UML/OCL class diagrams using constraint programming. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation (ICSTW), pp. 73–80 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSTW.2008.54

  40. Clavel, M., Egea, M., De Dios, M.A.G.: Checking unsatisfiability for OCL constraints. In: Proceedings of the Workshop The Pragmatics of OCL and Other Textual Specification Languages at MoDELS (2009). https://doi.org/10.14279/tuj.eceasst.24.334

  41. The Yices SMT Solver. http://yices.csl.sri.com/. Accessed 1 June 2016

  42. Bry, F., Decker, H., Manthey, R.: A uniform approach to constraint satisfaction and constraint satisfiability in deductive databases. In: Proceedings of Advances in Database Technology (EDBT), International Conference on Extending Database Technology, pp. 488–505 (1988)

  43. Bidoit, M., Colazzo, D.: Testing XML constraint satisfiability. Electron. Notes Theor. Comput. Sci. 174, 45–61 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2006.11.025

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Blackburn, P.: Representation, reasoning, and relational structures: a hybrid logic manifesto. Log. J. IGPL 8, 339–365 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/8.3.339

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Formica, A.: Satisfiability of object-oriented database constraints with set and bag attributes. Inform. Syst. 28, 213–224 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4379(02)00010-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Blanchette, J.C., Böhme, S., Paulson, L.C.: Extending sledgehammer with SMT solvers. J. Autom. Reason. 51, 109–128 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10817-013-9278-5

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research presented in this paper was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia as a part of the Grant III–44010: “Intelligent Systems for Software Product Development and Business Support Based on Models.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 6, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Nikola Obrenović, Ivan Luković & Sonja Ristić

Authors
  1. Nikola Obrenović
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan Luković
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonja Ristić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikola Obrenović.

Additional information

Communicated by Professor Heinrich Hussmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Obrenović, N., Luković, I. & Ristić, S. Consolidation of database check constraints. Softw Syst Model 18, 2111–2135 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0637-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0637-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation