skip to main content
research-article

Efficient reasoning about a robust XML key fragment

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 July 2009Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We review key constraints in the context of XML as introduced by Buneman et al. We demonstrate that:

(1) one of the proposed inference rules is not sound in general, and

(2) the inference rules are incomplete for XML key implication, even for nonempty sets of simple key paths.

This shows, in contrast to earlier statements, that the axiomatizability of XML keys is still open, and efficient algorithms for deciding their implication still need to be developed. Solutions to these problems have a wide range of applications including consistency validation, XML schema design, data exchange and integration, consistent query answering, XML query optimization and rewriting, and indexing.

In this article, we investigate the axiomatizability and implication problem for XML keys with nonempty sets of simple key paths. In particular, we propose a set of inference rules that is indeed sound and complete for the implication of such XML keys. We demonstrate that this fragment is robust by showing the duality of XML key implication to the reachability problem of fixed nodes in a suitable digraph. This enables us to develop a quadratic-time algorithm for deciding implication, and shows that reasoning about this XML key fragment is practically efficient. Therefore, XML applications can be unlocked effectively since they benefit not only from those XML keys specified explicitly by the data designer but also from those that are specified implicitly.

References

  1. Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., and Vianu, V. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Apparao, V. 1998. Document object model (DOM) level 1 specification, W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Arenas, M. and Libkin, L. 2004. A normal form for XML documents. Trans. Datab. Syst. 29, 1, 195--232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Arenas, M. and Libkin, L. 2005. An information-theoretic approach to normal forms for relational and XML data. J. ACM 52, 2, 246--283. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Benedikt, M., Fan, W., and Kuper, G. 2005. Structural properties of XPath fragments. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336, 1, 3--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Biskup, J. and Polle, T. 2001. Decomposition of object-oriented database schemas. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 33, 2-4, 119--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., Maler, E., and Yergeau, F. 2006. Extensible markup language (XML) 1.0 (fourth edition) W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Buneman, P., Davidson, S., Fan, W., Hara, C., and Tan, W. 2001a. Reasoning about keys for XML. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Database Programming Languages (DBPL). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2397. Springer, 133--148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Buneman, P., Davidson, S., Fan, W., Hara, C., and Tan, W. 2002. Keys for XML. Comput. Netw. 39, 5, 473--487.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Buneman, P., Davidson, S., Fan, W., Hara, C., and Tan, W. 2003. Reasoning about keys for XML. Inform. Syst. 28, 8, 1037--1063. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Buneman, P., Fan, W., Siméon, J., and Weinstein, S. 2001b. Constraints for semi-structured data and XML. SIGMOD Rec. 30, 1, 47--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Buneman, P., Fan, W., and Weinstein, S. 2000. Path constraints in semistructured databases. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 61, 2, 146--193. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Chomicki, J. 2007. Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4353. Springer, 1--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Chomicki, J. and Niwinski, D. 1995. On the feasibility of checking temporal integrity constraints. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 51, 3, 523--535. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Clark, J. and DeRose, S. 1999. XML path language (XPath) version 1.0, W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Davidson, S., Fan, W., and Hara, C. 2007. Propagating XML constraints to relations. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 73, 3, 316--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Davidson, S., Fan, W., and Hara, C. 2008. Erratum to “Propagating XML constraints to relations”. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 74, 3, 404--405. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Deutsch, A. and Tannen, V. 2005. XML queries and constraints, containment and reformulation. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336, 1, 57--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Fagin, R. and Vardi, M. Y. 1984. The theory of data dependencies—An overview. In Proceedings of the 11th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 172. Springer, 1--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Fan, W. 2005. XML constraints. In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA'05). IEEE Computer Society, 805--809.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Fan, W. and Libkin, L. 2002. On XML integrity constraints in the presence of DTDs. J. ACM 49, 3, 368--406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Fan, W. and Siméon, J. 2003. Integrity constraints for XML. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 66, 1, 254--291. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Gottlob, G., Koch, C., and Pichler, R. 2005. Efficient algorithms for processing XPath queries. Trans. Datab. Syst. 30, 2, 444--491. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Hara, C. and Davidson, S. 1999. Reasoning about nested functional dependencies. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database System (PODS'99). ACM Press, 91--100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Hartmann, S. 2001. On the implication problem for cardinality constraints and functional dependencies. Ann. Math. Art. Intell. 33, 253--307. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Hartmann, S., Koehler, H., Link, S., Trinh, T., and Wang, J. 2007. On the notion of an XML key. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Semantics in Data and Knowledge Bases (SDKB). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4925. Springer, 103--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartmann, S. and Link, S. 2007a. Numerical constraints for XML. In Proceedings of the 14th International Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation (WoLLIC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4576. Springer, 203--217. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Hartmann, S. and Link, S. 2007b. Unlocking keys for XML trees. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4353. Springer, 104--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Hartmann, S. and Link, S. 2008. Characterising nested database dependencies by fragments of propositional logic. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 152, 1-3, 84--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Hartmann, S. and Trinh, T. 2006. Axiomatising functional dependencies for XML with frequencies. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Foundations of Information and Knowledge Systems (FoIKS'06). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3861. Springer, 159--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ito, M. and Weddell, G. 1994. Implication problems for functional constraints on databases supporting complex objects. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 49, 3, 726--768. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jensen, C., Snodgrass, R., and Soo, M. 1996. Extending existing dependency theory to temporal databases. Trans. Knowl. Data Engin. 8, 4, 563--582. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Jungnickel, D. 1999. Graphs, Networks and Algorithms. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Lenzerini, M. and Nobili, P. 1990. On the satisfiability of dependency constraints in entity-relationship schemata. Inform. Syst. 15, 4, 453--461. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Liddle, S., Embley, D., and Woodfield, S. 1993. Cardinality constraints in semantic data models. Data Knowl. Eng. 11, 235--270. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Miklau, G. and Suciu, D. 2004. Containment and equivalence for a fragment of XPath. J. ACM 51, 1, 2--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Neven, F. and Schwentick, T. 2006. On the complexity of XPath containment in the presence of disjunction, DTDs, and variables. Logical Methods Comput. Sci. 2, 3:1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Paredaens, J., De Bra, P., Gyssens, M., and Van Gucht, D. 1989. The Structure of the Relational Database Model. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Suciu, D. 2001. On database theory and XML. SIGMOD Rec. 30, 3, 39--45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Tari, Z., Stokes, J., and Spaccapietra, S. 1997. Object normal forms and dependency constraints for object-oriented schemata. Trans. Datab. Syst. 22, 513--569. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Thalheim, B. 1991. Dependencies in Relational Databases. Teubner.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Thalheim, B. 2000. Entity-Relationship Modelling. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson, H., Beech, D., Maloney, M., and Mendelsohn, N. 2004. XML schema part 1: Structures 2nd Ed. W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Vianu, V. 2003. A Web odyssey: From Codd to XML. SIGMOD Rec. 32, 2, 68--77. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Vincent, M., Liu, J., and Liu, C. 2004. Strong functional dependencies and their application to normal forms in XML. Trans. Datab. Syst. 29, 3, 445--462. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Vincent, M., Liu, J., and Mohania, M. 2007. On the equivalence between FDs in XML and FDs in relations. Acta Inf. 44, 3-4, 207--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Weddell, G. 1992. Reasoning about functional dependencies generalized for semantic data models. Trans. Datab. Syst. 17, 1, 32--64. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Widom, J. 1999. Data management for XML: Research directions. Data Engin. Bull. 22, 3, 44--52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Wood, P. 2003. Containment for XPath fragments under DTD constraints. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT'03). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2572. Springer, 297--311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Efficient reasoning about a robust XML key fragment

                    Recommendations

                    Comments

                    Login options

                    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

                    Sign in

                    Full Access

                    • Published in

                      cover image ACM Transactions on Database Systems
                      ACM Transactions on Database Systems  Volume 34, Issue 2
                      June 2009
                      210 pages
                      ISSN:0362-5915
                      EISSN:1557-4644
                      DOI:10.1145/1538909
                      Issue’s Table of Contents

                      Copyright © 2009 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 ACM 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: 2 July 2009
                      • Revised: 1 January 2009
                      • Accepted: 1 January 2009
                      • Received: 1 March 2008
                      Published in tods Volume 34, Issue 2

                      Permissions

                      Request permissions about this article.

                      Request Permissions

                      Check for updates

                      Qualifiers

                      • research-article
                      • Research
                      • Refereed

                    PDF Format

                    View or Download as a PDF file.

                    PDF

                    eReader

                    View online with eReader.

                    eReader