skip to main content
article
Free Access

Database description with SDM: a semantic database model

Published:01 September 1981Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

SDM is a high-level semantics-based database description and structuring formalism (database model) for databases. This database model is designed to capture more of the meaning of an application environment than is possible with contemporary database models. An SDM specification describes a database in terms of the kinds of entities that exist in the application environment, the classifications and groupings of those entities, and the structural interconnections among them. SDM provides a collection of high-level modeling primitives to capture the semantics of an application environment. By accommodating derived information in a database structural specification, SDM allows the same information to be viewed in several ways; this makes it possible to directly accommodate the variety of needs and processing requirements typically present in database applications. The design of the present SDM is based on our experience in using a preliminary version of it.

SDM is designed to enhance the effectiveness and usability of database systems. An SDM database description can serve as a formal specification and documentation tool for a database; it can provide a basis for supporting a variety of powerful user interface facilities, it can serve as a conceptual database model in the database design process; and, it can be used as the database model for a new kind of database management system.

References

  1. 1 ABR~AL, J.R. Data semantics. In Database Management, J. Klimbie and K. Koffeman, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2 ANSI/X3/SPARC (STANDARDS PLANNING AND REQUIREMENTS COMMITTEE). Interim report from the study group on database management systems. FDT (Bulletin of ACM SIGMOD) 7, 2 (1975).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3 BACHMAN, C.W. The role concept in data models. In Proc. Int. Conf. Very Large Databases, Tokyo, Japan, Oct. 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4 BILLER, H., AND NEUHOLD, E.J. Semantics of databases: The semantics of data models. Inf. Syst. 3 (1978), 11-30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. 5 BUNEMAN, P., AND FRANKEL, R.E. FQL--A functional query language. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, Boston, Mass., 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. 6 BUNEMAN, P., AND MORGAN, H.L. Implementing alerting techniques in database systems. In Proc. COMPSAC'77, Chicago, Ill., Nov. 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7 CHAMBERLIN, D.D. Relational database management systems. Comput. Surv. 8, l (March 1976), 43-66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8 ChANt, C.L. A hyper-relational model of databases. IBM Res. Rep. RJI634, IBM, San Jose, Calif., Aug. 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9 CHEN, P.P.S. The entity-relationship model: Toward a unified view of data. A CM Trans. Database Syst. 1, 1 (March 1976), 9-36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10 CHF:N, P.P.S. The entity-relationship approach to logical database design. Mono. 6, QED Information Sciences, Wellesley, Mass., 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11 CODASYL COMMITTEE ON DATA SYSTEM LANGUAGES. Codasyl database task group report. ACM, New York, I971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12 CODD, E.F. A relational model of data for large shared data banks. Commun. ACM I3, 6 (June i970), 377-387. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13 CODD, E.F. Further normalization of the database relational model, in Database Systems, Courant Computer Science Symposia 6, R. Rustin, Ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., i971, pp. 65-98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14 CODD, E.F. Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4, 4 (Dec. 1979), 397-434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. 15 COMPUTER CORPORATION OF AMERICA. DBMS--Independent CICIS specifications. Tech. Rep. CCA, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16 ESWARAN, K.P., AND CHAMBERLIN, D.D. Functional specifications of a subsystem for database integrity. In Proc. Int. Conf. Very Large Databases, Framingham, Mass., Sept. 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17 HAMMER, M. Research directions in database management. In Research Directions in Software Technology, P. Wegner, Ed. The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18 HAMMER, M., AND BERKOWITZ, B. DIAL: A programming language for data-intensive applications. Working Paper, M.I.T. Lab. Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass., 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 19 HAMMER, M., AND McLEOD, D. Semantic integrity in a relational database system. In Proc. Int. Conf. Very Large Databases, Framingham, Mass., Sept. 1975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20 HAMMER, M., AND McLEoD, D. A framework for database semantic integrity. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Software Engineering, SanFrancisco, Calif., Oct. 1976. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21 HAMMER, M., AND McLEoD, D. The semantic data model: A modelling mechanism for database applications. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, Austin, Tex., 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22 HAMMER, M., AND MCLEOD, D. On the architecture of database management systems. In Infotech State-of-the-Art Report on Data Design. Pergamon Infotech Ltd., Berkshire, England, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 23 KENT, W. Data and Reality. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24 KENT, W. Limitations of record-based information models. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4, i (March 1979), 107-131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 25 LE~, R.M., ANn GERRITSEN, R. Extended semantics for generalization hierarchies. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, Austin, Tex., 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 26 McLEOD, D. High level definition of abstract domains in a relational database system. J. Comput. Languages 2, 3 (1977).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. 27 McLEoD, D. A semantic database model and its associatetd structured user interface. Tech. Rep., M.I.T. Lab. Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass., 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28 McLEOD, D. A database transaction specification methodology for end-users. Tech. Rep., Computer Science Dep., Univ. Southern California, Los, Angeles, Calif., 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. 29 McLEoD, D., AND HEIMBIGNER, D. A federated architecture for database systems. In Proc. Nat. Computer Conf., Anaheim, Calif., 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 30 McL~oD, D., A~D KINa, R. Applying a semantic database model. In Proc. Int. Conf. Entity- Relationship Approach to Systems Analysis and Design, Los Angeles, Calif., Dec. 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. 31 MYLOPOULOS, J., BERNSTEIN, P.A., AND WONG, H. K. T. A language facility for designing interactive database-intensive applications. In Proc. A CM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, Austin, Tex., 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 32 PALMER, I. Record subtype facilities in database systems. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Very Large Databases, Berlin, West Germany, Sept. 1978.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. 33 PIaOTTE, A. The entity-property-association model: An information-oriented database model. Tech. Rep., M.B.L.E. Res. Lab., Brussels, Belgium, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 34 ROUSSOPOULOS, N. Algebraic data definition. In Proc. 6th Texas Conf. Computing Systems, Austin, Tex., Nov. 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 35 SCHANK, R.C. Identification of conceptualizations underlying natural language. In Computer Models of Thought and Language, R.C. Schank and K.M. Colby, Eds. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, Calif., 1973.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. 36 SCHMID, H.A., AND SWENSON, J.R. On the semantics of the relational data model. In Proc. A CM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Management of Data, San Jose, Calif., 1975. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. 37 SENKO, M.E. Information systems:Records, relations, sets, entities, and things. {nf Syst. I, I (1975), 3-14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. 38 SENXO, M.E. Conceptual schemas, abstract data structures, enterprise descriptions. In Proe. A CM Int. Computing Syrup., Belgium, April 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. 39 SHIPMAN, D.W. The functional data model and the data language DAPLEX. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 6, 1 (March 1981), 140-173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. 40 SMITH, J.M., AND SMITH, D.C.P. Database abstractions:Aggregation. Commun. ACM 20, 6 (June 1977), 405-413. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. 41 SMITH, J.M., AND SMITH, D.C.P. Database abstractions:Aggregation and generalization. A CM Trans. Database Syst. 2, 2 (June 1977), I05--133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. 42 SMITH, J.M., AND SMITH, D.C.P. Principles of conceptual database design. In Proc. NYU Syrup. Database Design, New York, May 1978. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. 43 SMITH, J.M., AND SMITH, D.C.P. A database approach to software specification. Tech. Rep. CCA-79-17, Computer Corporation of America, Cambridge, Mass., April 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. 44 SOLVB~RG, A. A contribution to the definition of concepts for expressing users' information system requirements. In Proc. Int. Conf. Entity-Relationship Approach to Systems Analysis and Design, Los Angeles, Calif., Dec. 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. 45 STONEBRAKER, M.R. High level integrity assurance in relational database management systems. Electronics Res. Lab. Rep. ERL-M473, Univ. California, Berkeley, Calif., Aug. 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. 46 So, S.Y.W., AND LO, D.H. A semantic association model for conceptual database design. In Proc. Int. Conf. Entity-Relationship Approach to Systems Analysis and Design, Los Angeles, CaSf., Dec. 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. 47 TAYLOR, R.W., AND FRANK, R.L. CODASYL database management systems. Comput. Surv. 8, 1 (March 1976), 67-i04. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. 48 TSICHRITZlS, D.C., AND LOCHOVSKY, F.H. Hierarchical database management:A survey. Cornput. Surv. 8, 1 (March 1976), 105-124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. 49 WIF.DERHOLD, G. Database Design. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. 50 WIEDERHOLD, G., AND EL-MASRI, R. Structural model for database design. In Proc. Int. Conf. Entity-Relationship Approach to Systems Analysis and Design, Los Angeles, Calif., Dec. 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. 51 WONG, H.K.T., AND MYLOPOULOS, J. Two views of data semantics:A survey of data models in artificial intelligence and database management. INFOR 15, 3 (Oct. 1977), 344-382.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Database description with SDM: a semantic database model

    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

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader