Abstract
A crucial requirement for active databases is the ability to analyse the behaviour of the active rules. A particularly important type of analysis is termination analysis. We define a framework for modelling the execution of active rules, based on abstract interpretation. Specific methods for termination analysis are modelled as specific approximations within the framework. The correctness of a method can be established by proving two generic requirements provided by the framework. This affords the opportunity to compare and verify existing methods for termination analysis of active rules, and also to develop new ones.
Keywords
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
S. Abramsky and C. Hankin, editors. Abstract Interpretation of Declarative Languages. Ellis Horwood, 1987. 252
A. Aiken, J. Widom, and J. M. Hellerstein. Static analysis techniques for predicting the behavior of active database rules. ACM TODS, 20(1):3–41, 1995. 268
J. Bailey, L. Crnogorac, K. Ramamohanarao, and H. Søndergaard. Abstract interpretation of active rules and its use in termination analysis. In Proc. ICDT’97, LNCS 1186, pages 188–202, 1997. 268
J. Bailey, G. Dong, and K. Ramamohanarao. Structural issues in active rule systems. In Proc. ICDT’97, LNCS 1186, pages 203–214, 1997. 266
J. Bailey, G. Dong, and K. Ramamohanarao. Decidability and undecidability results for the termination problem of active database rules. In Proc. PODS’98, pages 264–273, 1998. 257
J. Bailey and A. Poulovassilis. Abstract interpretation for termination analysis in functional active databases. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 12(2/3):243–273, 1999. 268
E. Baralis, Ceri. S., and S. Paraboschi. Compile-time and runtime analysis of active behaviors. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 10(3):353–370, 1998. 263, 268
E. Baralis and J. Widom. An algebraic approach to rule analysis in expert database systems. In Proc. VLDB’94, pages 475–486, Santiago, Chile, 1994. 263, 268
S. Chaudhuri and P. Kolaitis. Can datalog be approximated ? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 55, 1997. 268
P. Cousot and R. Cousot. Abstract interpretation frameworks. Journal of Logic Programming, 13(2&3):103–179, 1992. 252
T. Griffin, L. Libkin, and H. Trickey. A correction to “Incremental recomputation of active relational expressions” by Qian andWiederhold. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 9(3):508–511, 1997. 265
A. Karadimce and S. Urban. Refined triggering graphs: A logic based approach to termination analysis in an active object-oriented database. In Proc. 12th ICDE, pages 384–391, 1996. 268
K. Kulkarni, N. Mattos, and R. Cochrane. Active database features in SQL3. In [17]. 267, 268
L. Libkin. Approximation in databases. In Proc. ICDT’95, pages 411–424, 1995. 268
B. Ludäscher, U. Hamann, and G. Lausen. A logical framework for active rules. In Proc. 7th International Conference on Management of Data, Pune, India, 1995. 268
K. Marriott, H. Søndergaard, and N. D. Jones. Denotational abstract interpretation of logic programs. ACM TOPLAS, 16(3):607–648, 1994. 252
N. Paton, editor. Active Rules in Database Systems. Springer-Verlag, 1999. 253
P. Picouet and V. Vianu. Semantics and expressiveness issues in active databases. In Proc. PODS’95, pages 126–138, 1995. 267
A. Poulovassilis, S. Reddi, and C. Small. A formal semantics for an active functional DBPL. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems (special issue on Active Database Systems), 7(2):151–172, 1996. 268
X. Qian and G. Wiederhold. Incremental recomputation of active relational expressions. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 3(3):337–341, 1991. 265
S. Reddi, A. Poulovassilis, and C. Small. Extending a functional DBPL with ECArules. In Proc. RIDS’95, pages 101–115, 1995. 268
Y. Sagiv and M. Yannakakis. Equivalences among relational expressions with the union and difference operators. Journal of the ACM, 27(4):633–655, 1980. 261, 262
D. A. Schmidt. Denotational Semantics. Allyn and Bacon, 1986. 253, 257, 259
C. Zaniolo. Active database rules with transaction-conscious stable-model semantics. In Proc. DOOD’95, pages 55–72, 1995. 268
Y. Zhou and M. Hsu. A theory for rule triggering systems. In Proc. EDBT’90, LNCS 416 pages 407–422, 1990. 268
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bailey, J., Poulovassilis, A. (2000). An Abstract Interpretation Framework for Termination Analysis of Active Rules. In: Connor, R., Mendelzon, A. (eds) Research Issues in Structured and Semistructured Database Programming. DBPL 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1949. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44543-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44543-9_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41481-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44543-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive