skip to main content
article
Free Access

Object orientation in multidatabase systems

Published:01 June 1995Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A multidatabase system (MDBS) is a confederation of preexisting distributed, heterogeneous, and autonomous database systems. There has been a recent proliferation of research suggesting the application of object-oriented techniques to facilitate the complex task of designing and implementing MDBSs. Although this approach seems promising, the lack of a general framework impedes any further development. The goal of this paper is to provide a concrete analysis and categorization of the various ways in which object orientation has affected the task of designing and implementing MDBSs.

We identify three dimensions in which the object-oriented paradigm has influenced this task: the general system architecture, the schema architecture, and the heterogeneous transaction management. Then we provide a classification and a comprehensive analysis of the issues related to each of the above dimensions. To demonstrate the applicability of this analysis, we conclude with a comparative review of existing multidatabase systems.

References

  1. AmTEBOUL, S. AND BONNER, A. 1991. Objects and views. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD ACM Press, New York, 238-247. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. AGHA, G. 1986.Actors. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. AHMED, R., ALBERT, J., DU, W., KENT, W., LITWIN, W., AND SHAN, M.-C. 1993. An overview of Pegasus. In Proceedings of the RIDE-IMS (April), 273-277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. AHMED, R., DESCHEDT, P., KENT, W., KETABCHI, M., LITWIN, W., RAFII, A., AND SHAN, M.-C. 1991. Pegasus: A system for seamless integration of heterogeneous information sources. In COMP- CON 91 (March), 128-136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. AHMED, R., DESCHEDT, P., Du, W., KENT, W., KETABCHI, M., LITWIN, W., RAFII, A., AND SHAN, M.-C. 1991. The Pegasus heterogeneous multidatabase system. IEEE Computer 24, 12 (Dec.), 19-27. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. ALBERT, J., AHMED, R., KETABCHI, M., KENT, W., AND SHAN, M.-C. 1993. Automatic importation of relational schemas in Pegasus. In Proceedings of the RIDE-IMS (April), 105-113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. BADRINATH, B. R. AND RAMAMRITHAM, K. 1988. Synchronizing transactions on objects. IEEE Trans. Computers 37, 5 (May), 541-547. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. BANERJEE, J., CHOU, H.-T., GARZA, J. F., KIM, W., WOELK, D., AND BALLOU, N. 1987. Data model issues for object-oriented applications. ACM Trans. Office Inf. Syst. 5, 4 (Jan.), 3-26. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. BARGHOUTI, N. S. AND KAISER, G.r. 1991. Concurrency control in advanced database applications. ACM Comput. Surv. 23, 3 (Sept.), 269-317. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. BATINI, C., LENZERINI, M., AND NAVATHE, S. B. 1986. Comparison of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM Comput. Surv. 18, 4 (Dec.), 323-364. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. BEERI, C., BERNSTEIN, P. A., AND GOODMAN, N. 1989. A model for concurrency in nested transaction systems. J. ACM, 36, 2 (April), 230-269. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. BERNSTEIN, P. A., HADJILACOS, V., AND GOODMAN, N. 1987. Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. BERTINO, E. 1991. Integration of heterogeneous data repositories by using object-oriented views. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems (April), 22-29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. BERTINO, E. 1992. A view mechanism for objectoriented databases. In Advances in Database Technology--EDBT '92, C. Delobel and G. Gottlob, Eds., Springer Verlag, New York, 136 151. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. BERTINO, E., NEGRI, M., PELAGGATI, G., AND SBATELLA, L. 1988. The comandos integration system: an object-oriented approach to the interconnection of heterogeneous applications. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Object-Oriented Database Systems (Sept.), 213-218. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. BERTINO, E., NEGRI, M., PELAGGATI, G., AND SBATELLA, L. 1989. Integration of heterogeneous database applications through an object-oriented interface. Inf. Syst. 14, 5, 407-420. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. BLAIR, G. S., GALLAGHER, J. J., AND MALIK, J. 1989. Genericity vs inheritance vs delegation vs conformance vs .. JOOP (Sept./Oct.), 11-17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. BREITBART, Y., GARCIA-MOLINA, H., AND SILBERSCHATZ, A. 1992. Overview of multi* database transaction management. VLDB Journal 1, 2, 181-239. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. BREITBART, Y., GEORGAKOPOULOS, D., AND SILBERSCHATZ, A. 1991. On rigorous transaction scheduling. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 17, 9 (Sept.), 954-960. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. BRETL, R. ET AL. 1989. The GemStone data management system. In Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications, W. Kim and F. H. Lochovsky, Eds., ACM Press, New York, 283-308. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. BRIGHT, M. W., HURSON, R., AND PAKZARD, S. H. 1992. A taxonomy and current issues in multidatabase systems. IEEE Computer (March), 50-60. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. BUCHMANN, A., Ozsu, M. T., HORNICK, M., GEORGAKOPOULOS, D., AND MANOLA, F.A. 1992. A transaction model for active distributed systems. In Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, A. K. Elmagarmid, Ed., Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Calif., 123-158. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. BUKHRES, O. A., ELMAGARMID, A. K., AND MULLEN, J.G. 1992. Object-oriented multidatabases: Systems and research overview. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (Baltimore, MD, Nov.), 27-34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. BUKHRES, O. A., CHEN, J., Du, W., ELMAGARMID, A. K., AND PEZZOLI, e. 1993. InterBase: An execution environment for heterogeneous software systems. IEEE Computer, (Aug.), 57-69. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. CASTELLANOS, M. AND SALTOR, F. 1991. Semantic enrichment of database schemas: An object-oriented approach. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Interoperability in Multidatabase Systems (April), 71-78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. CATTELL, R. G. G. Ed. 1993. The Object Database Standard: ODMG-93. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Calif. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. CHEN, J., BUKHRES, O., AND ELMAGARMID, A. K. 1993. IPL: A multidatabase transaction specification language. In Proceedings of the 1993 International Conference on Distributed Computing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. CHOMICKI, J. AND LITWIN, W. 1992. Declarative definition of object-oriented multidatabase mappings. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Distributed Object Management (Edmonton, Canada, Aug.), 307-325.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. CHRYSANTHIS, P. K. AND RAMAMRITHAN, K. 1994. Synthesis of extended transaction models using ACTA ACM Trans. Database Syst. 19, 3 (Sept.), 450-491. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. COLLET, C., HUHNS, M. N., AND SHEN, W.-M. 1991. Resource integration using a large knowledge base in Carnot. IEEE Computer 24, 12 (Dec.), 55-62. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. CONNERS, T AND LYNGBAEK, P. 1988. Providing uniform access to heterogeneous information bases. In Proceedings of the Second Internatwnal Workshop on Object-Orzented Database Systems (Sept.), 162 173. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. CZEDJO, B. AND TAYLOR, M. 1991. Integration of database systems using an object-oriented approach. In Procee&ngs of the F~rst Internatwnal Workshop on Interoperabdity ~n Multidatabase Systems (April), 30 37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. DAYAL, U. 1989. Queries and views in an objectoriented data model Database Programming Languages, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop. Morgan Kaufmann, San Matee, Calif. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. DAYAL, U., BUCHMANN, A. P., AND MCCARTHY, D. R. 1988. Rules are objects too' A knowledge model for an active, object-oriented database system. In Advances ~n Database Technology --EDBT '88, Springer Verlag, New York, 127-143. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. DAYAL, U. AND HWANG, H. 1984. View definition and generalization for database integration in a multidatabase system. 1EEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 10, 6, 628-645.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. DEVOR, C., ELMASRI, R., LARSON, J., RAHIMI, S., AND RICHARDSON, J. 1982. Five-schema architecture extends DBMS to distributed applications. Electron. Des. (March 18), 27 32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Du, W. AND ELMAGARMID, A.K. 1989. Quasi seriahzability: A correctness criterion for global concurrency correctness in Interbase. In Proceedings' of the Internationa! Conference on Very Large Databases (Amsterdam). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. DUCHENE, $., KAUL, M., AND TURAU, V. 1988. VODAK kernel data model. In Procee&ngs of the Second International Workshop on Object- Oriented Database Systems (Sept.), 174-192. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. ELMAGARMm, A. K. (Ed.) 1992. Database Transactmn Models for Advanced Applicatwns Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, Cahf. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. ELMAOARMID, h. I~., LEU, Y.~ LITWIN, W., AND RUSINKIEWICS, M. 1990. A multidatabase transaction model for InterBase. In Proceedrags of the 16th International Conference on Ve~3, Large Data Bases (Aug. 1990), 507-518. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. ELMAGARMID, A. AND Pu, C. (Eds.) 1990. Special issue on heterogenous databases. ACM Cornput. Surv. 22, 3 (Sept.).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. FANG, D., HAMMER, J, AND McLEoD, D. 1992. An approach to behavior shoring in Federated database systems. In Proceedings of the Internattonal Workshop on D~stributed Object Management (Edmonton, Canada, Aug.), 66-80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. GAGLIARDI, R., CANEVE, M., AND OLDANO, G. 1990. An operational approach to the integratmn of distributed heterogeneous enwronments. In Proceedings of the PARBASE-90 Conference (Miami Beach, Fla, March), 368-377.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. GALLAGHER, L. J. 1992. Object SQL: Language extensions for object data management. In Proceedzngs of the 1st Internatwnal Conference on Information and Knowledge Management.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. GARCIA-SOLACO, M., CASTELLANOS, M., AND SALTER, F 1993. Discovering interdatabase resemblance of classes for interoperable databases. In Procee&ngs of the 2nd Internatwnal Workshop on Interoperabilzty in Multzdatabase Systems, 26-33.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. GELLER, J, PERL, Y., AND NEUHOLD, E. J. 1991. Structure and semantics in OODM class specification. SIGMOD Rec. 20, 4 (Dec), 40-43. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. GELLER, J., PERL, Y., NEUHOLD, E., AND SHETH, A. 1992. Structural schema integration with full and partial correspondence using the dual model. Inf. Syst. 17, 6, 443-464. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. GEORGAKOPOULOS, D., I-IoRNICK, M.1 AND KRYCHNIAK, P. 1993. An environment for the specification and management of extended transactions in DOMS. In Procee&ngs of the RIDE-IMS (April), 253-257.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. GEORGAKOPOULOS, n., HGRNICK, M., KRYCHNIAK, P., AND MANOLA, F. 1994. Spemfication and management of extended transactions in a programmable transaction environment. In Proceedmgs of the lOth Internatwnal Conference on Data Eng,neering (Feb.). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. GEORGAKOPOULOS, D., RUSINKIEWlCZ, M., AND SHETH1 A. 1991. On serializability of multidatabase transactmns through forced local conflicts. In Procee&ngs of the 7th Internatzonal Conference on Data Engineering (Kobe, Japan, April), 314-323. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. HADJILACOS, T. AND HADJILACOS. V. 1991. Transaction synchronization in object bases. J. Cornput. Syst. Sct. 43, 2-24. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. HEILER, S. AND ZDONIK, S. 1990 Object views' Extending the vision. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Data Engineering, 86-93. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. HEILER, S., HARADHVALA, S., ZDONIK, S., BLAUSTEIN, B., AND ROSENTHAL, A. 1992 A flexible framework ~or transaction managonaent in engineering environment. In Database Transaction Models for Advanced Apphcatwns, A. K Elmagarmid (Ed.) Morgan Kaufmann~ San Mateo, Calif., 88-121. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. HERLIHY, M. P. AND WEIHL, W.E. 1991. Hybrid concurrency control for abstract data types. J. Comput. Syst Sci. 43, 25-61. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. HUHNS, M. N., JACOBS, N., KSmZYK, T., SHEN, W -M., SINGH, M. P., AND CANNATA, P.E. 1992. Enterprise information modehng and model integration in Carnot In Enterprise Integration Modelzng, Proceedings of the First {nternational Conference, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 290 299.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. KAUL, M., DROSTEN, K., AND NEUHOLD, E.J. 1991. Viewsystem: Integrating heterogeneous information bases by object-oriented views. In IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, 2-10. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. KENT, W. 1993. The objects are coming! Comput. Standards Interfaces 15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. KIFER, M., I~M, W., ANn SAOIV, Y. 1992. Querying object-oriented databases. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM SIGMOD Conference, 392-402. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. KIM, W. 1990. Introduction to Object-Oriented Databases. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. K~M, W. 1992. The UniSQL/M system. Personal communication, Sept.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. KIM, W. AND SEO, J. 1991. Classifying schematic and data heterogeneity in multidatabase systems. IEEE Computer 24, 12 (Dec.), 12-17. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. KIM, W., CHOI, I., GALA, S., AND SCHEEVEL, M. 1993. On resolving schematic heterogeneity in multidatabase systems. Int. J. Parallel Distrib. Databases 1,251-279. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. KLAS, W., FANKHAUSER, P., MUTH, P., RAKOW, T., AND NEUHOLD, E.J. 1995. Database integration using the open object-oriented database system VODAK. In Object-Oriented Multidatabases, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1995, to appear. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. KRISHNAMURTHY, a., LITWIN, W., AND KENT, W. 1991. Language features for interoperability of databases with schematic discrepancies. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD, 40-49. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. KULKARNI, K.G. 1993. Object orientation and the SQL standard. Comput. Standards Interfaces 15, 287-301.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. KULKARNI, K. G. 1994. Object-oriented extensions in SQL3: A status report. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM SIGMOD Conference (May), 478. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. LARSON, J., NAVATHE, S., AND ELMARSI, R. 1989. A theory of attribute equivalence in databases with applications to schema integration. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 15, 4 (April), 449-463. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. LI, Q. AND McLEoD, D. 1991. An object-oriented approach to federated databases. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Interoperabil~ty in Multldatabase Systems (April), 64-70.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. LIEBERMAN, H. 1986. Using prototypical objects to implement shared behavior in object-oriented systems. In Proceedings of OOPSLA '86 (Sept.), 214-223. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. LISKOV, B. 1988. Distributed programming in Argus. Commun. ACM, 31, 3 (March), 300-312. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. LISKOV, B., DAY, M., AND SHIRA, L. 1992. Distributed object management in Thor. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Distributed Object Management (Edmonton, Canada, Aug.), 1-15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. LITWIN, W., MARK, L., AND ROUSSOPOULOS, N. 1990. Interoperability of multiple autonomous databases. ACM Comput. Surv. 22, 3 (Sept.), 267-293. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. MANNINO, M. V., NAVATHE, S., AND EFFELSBERG, W. 1988. A rule-based approach for merging generalization hierarchies. InCh. Syst. 13, 3, 257-272. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. MANOLA, F. AND HEILER, S. 1992. An approach to interoperable object models. In Proceedings of the Internatwnal Workshop on Distributed Object Management (Edmonton, Canada, Aug.), 326-330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. MANOLA, F., SELLER, S., GEORGAKOPOULOS, D., HORNICK, M., AND BRODIE, M. 1992. Distributed object management. Int. J. Intell. Cooperative Info. Syst. 1, 1 (June).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. MOTRO, A. 1987. Superviews: Virtual integration of multiple databases. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 13, 7 (July), 785-798. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. MULLEN, J.G. 1992. FBASE: A federated objectbase system. Int. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Eng. 7, 2 (April), 91-99. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. MULLEN, J. G. AND ELMAGARMID, A. 1993. Inter- SQL: A multidatabase transaction programming language. In Proceedings of the 1993 Workshop on Database Programming Languages. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. MULLEN, J. G., KIM, W., AND SHARIF-ASKARY, J. 1992. On the impossibility of atomic commitment in multidatabase systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on System Integration (Morristown, N.J.).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. NAVATHE, S., SAVASERE, A., ANWAR, T., BECK, H., AND GALA, S. 1994. Object modeling using classification in CANDIDE and its application. In Advances ~n Object-Oriented Database Systems, Springer Veriag, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  81. NICOL, J. R., WILKES, C. T., AND MANOLA, F. A. 1993. Object orientation in heterogeneous distributed computing systems. IEEE Computer 26, 6 (June), 57-67. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP. 1991. The common object request broker: Architecture and specification. OMG Dec. 91.12.1, Dec.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. OBJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP. 1992. Object management architecture guide. OMG Doc. 92.11.1, Sept.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. Ozsu, M. T. AND VALDURIEZ, P. 1991. Principles of Distributed Database Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. PAPADIMITRIOU, C. 1986. The Theory of Database Concurrency Control. Computer Science Press, Rockville, Md. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. PAPAZOGLOU, M. P. AND MARINOS, L. 1990. An object-oriented approach to distributed data management. J. Syst. Softw. 11, 2 (Feb.), 95-109. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. PATHAK, G., STACKHOUSE, B., AND HEILER, S. 1991. EIS/XAIT project: An object-based interoperability framework for heterogeneous systems. Comput. Standards Interfaces 13, 315-319. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  88. PEDERSEN, C. 1989. Extending ordinary inheritance schemes to include generalization. In Proceedings of OO PSLA '89 (Oct.), 407-417. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  89. PITOURA, E. 1995. Extending an object-oriented programming language to support the integration of database systems. In 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-28) (Maui, Hawaii, Jan.), 707-716. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  90. RAJ, R. K., TEMPERO, E., LEVY, H. M., BLACK, A. P., HUTCHINSON, N. C., AND JUL, E. 1991. Emerald: A general-purpose programming language. Softw. Pract. Exper. 21, i (Jan.). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. RAMAMRITHAM, K. AND CHRYSANTIS, P.K. 1992. In search of acceptability criteria: Database consistency requirements and transaction correctness properties. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Distributed Object Management (Edmonton, Canada, Aug.), 120-140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. RUSlNKIEWlCZ, M. AND SHETH, A. 1991. Multitransaction for managing interdependent data. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 14, i (March). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. SALTOR, F., CASTELLANOS, M., AND GARCIA-SOLACO, M. 1991. Suitability of data models as canonical models for federated databases. ACM SIGMOD Rec. 20, 4, 44-48. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. SAVASERE, A., SHETH, A., GALA, G, NAVATHE, S., AND MARKUS, H. 1991. On applying classification to schema integration. In Proceedings of the F~rst International Workshop on Interoperability ~n Mult~database Systems (April), 258-261.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  95. SCHALLER, T., BUKHRES, O. A., CHEN, J., AND ELMAGARMID, A. K. 1993. A taxonomic and analytical survey of multidatabase systems. Tech. Rep. CSD-TR-93-040, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  96. SCHOLL, M. H. AND SCHEK, H.-J. 1990. A relational object model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Database Theory--ICDT '90 (Dec.), 89-105. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  97. SCHOLL, M. H., SCHEK, H. J., AND TRESCH, M. 1992. Object algebra and views for multiobjectbases. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Distributed Object Management (Edmonton, Canada, Aug.), 336-359.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  98. SCI4REFL, M. AND NEUHOLD, E. J. 1988. Objoet class definition by generalization using upward inheritance. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, 4-13. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. SCHWARTZ, P. M. AND SPECTOR, A.Z. 1984. Synchronizing shared abstract types. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 2, 3 (Aug.), 223-250. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. SHETH, A. P., GALA, S. K., AND NAVATHE, S. B. 1993. On automatic reasoning for schema integration. Int. J. Intell. Cooperative Inf. Syst. 2, 1 (March).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. SHETH, A. AND LARSON, J. 1990. Federated database systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 22, 3 (Sept.), 183 236. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  102. SHETH, A. P., LARSON, J. A., CORNELIO, A., AND NAVATHE, S.B. 1988. A tool for integrating conceptual schemas and user views. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Data Engineering (Fob.), 176-183. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. SKARRA, A.H. 1991. Localized correctness specification for cooperating transactions in an object-oriented database. IEEE Bull. Office Knowl. Eng. 4, 1, 79-106. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  104. SKARRA, h. H. AND ZDONIK, S. 1989. Concurrency control and object-oriented databases. In Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Appltcations ACM Press, New York, 359-421. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. SNYDER, A. 1986. Encapsulation and inheritance in object-oriented programming languages. In Proceedings of OOPSLA '86 (Sept.), 38-45. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. SOLEY, R. M. 1992. Using object technology to integrate distributed applications. In Enterprise Integration Modeling, Proceedings of the First International Conference, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 446-454.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  107. STE~N, L.A. 1987. Delegation is inheritance. In Proceedings of OOPSLA '87 (Oct.), 138-146. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  108. TAYLOR, C.J. 1992. A status report on open distributed processing. First Class (Object Manage. Group Newsl.) 2, 2 (June/July), 11-13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  109. THOMAS, G., THOMPSON, G. R., CHUNG, C.-W., BARKMEYER, E., CARTER, F., TEMPLETON, M., FOX, S., AND HARTMAN, B 1990. Heterogeneous distributed database systems for production use. ACM Comput. Surv. 22, 3 (Sept.), 237-265. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  110. TOMLINSON, C., LAVENDER, G., MEREDITH, G., WOELK, D., AND CANNATA, P. 1992. The Carnot extensible service switch (EES)--Support for service execution. In Enterprise Integration Modehng, Procee&ngs of the First International Conference MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 493-502.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  111. TSICHRITZIS, D. AND KLUG, A. 1978. The ANSI/X3/SPARC DBMS framework Inf. Syst. 3, 4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  112. UNGAR, D. AND SMITH, R.B. 1987. Self: The power of simplicity. In Proceedings of OOPSLA '87 (Oct.), 227-242. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  113. WEONER, P. 1987. Dimensions of object-based language design. In Proceedings of OOPSLA '87 (Oct.), 168-182. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  114. WEIHL, W. E. 1988. Commutativity-based concurrency control for abstract data types. IEEE Trans. Computers, 37, 12, 1488-1505. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  115. WEIHL, W. E. 1989. Local atomicity properties: Modular concurrency control for abstract data types. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 11, 2 (April), 249-282. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  116. WEIKUM, G. 1991. Prinmples and realization of multilevel transaction management. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 16, i (March), 132-180. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  117. WOELK, D., SHEN, W.-M., HUHNS, M., AND CANNATA, P. 1992. Model driven enterprise information in Carnot. In Enterprise Integration Modeling, Proceedings of the First International Conference, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 301-309.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  118. WOELK, D., CANNATA, P., HUHNS, M., SHEN, W.-M., AND TOMLINSON, C. 1993. Using Carnot for enterprise information integration. In Proceedrags of the Second International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems (Jan.), 133-136. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  119. ZHANG, A. AND ELMAGARMiD, A.K. 1993. A theory of global concurrency control in multidatabase systems. VLDB J. (July). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  120. ZHANG, A. AND PITOURA, E. 1993. A view-based approach to relaxing global serializability in multidatabase systems. Tech. Rep. CSD-TR-93- 082, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Object orientation in multidatabase systems

                Recommendations

                Reviews

                Clement R. Attanasio

                There are many autonomous, heterogeneous database systems that need to cooperate over networks to provide uniform access to all the data in a way that is consistent with contemporary database semantics. This environment is a multidatabase system. This paper attempts to survey current research and practice directed toward meeting this need. The first problem is to provide data access for programs whose data model is different from that provided by the existing database systems. Most existing database systems use the relational data model, but the object model is becoming the programming model of choice. How can relational data be delivered to programs that operate on objects, and then stored in a repository that implements the relational model__?__ Clearly, interface software is required. The paper describes how this interface software is specified and implemented. The authors believe that the object programming model provides the language in which the solutions must be expressed. They first attempt a taxonomy of object-based architectures for multidatabase systems. To accomplish cooperation, they propose a common data model that can be mapped onto the various heterogeneous systems, and to which the applications for the unified data can be written. Finally, they specify a model for distributed transactions against the distributed data. This paper is a brave attempt. The field is immature, and therefore it is difficult to impose a coherent system on it. The paper often reads more like a catalog, and a catalog of acronyms rather than concepts. The authors seldom provide examples to motivate their structures, which do little more than whet the appetite for more. There is an extensive bibliography for the interested reader.

                Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

                Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

                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