Advanced Database Technology and Design phần 9 pdf

performance of new components might not be possible (e.g., specialized concurrency control for new index structures). As for the latter point, more research is needed to fully understand the implications and side effects of CDBMSs. The work conducted in the area of CDBMSs has focused on extensions in the area of new data types (including indexes useful for those nonstandard types). Componentization of the DBMS kernel, including the transaction manager and the query processor in general and the optimizer in particular, has been considered less thoroughly so far. In those areas, a better under- standing of the implications and limitations of componentization is neces- sary. It might turn out that subsystems also need to be componentized and that it might be possible to specialize them by adding or replacing new (sub)components. Despite the problems that still need to be addressed, component DBMSs will certainly gain practical significance, and componentization of DBMSs will continue to be a major trend in DB technology. References [1] Date, C. J., and H. Darwen, A Guide to the SQL Standard, 4th ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997. [2] Bernstein, P. A., V. Hadzilacos, and N. Goodman, Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987. [3] Codd, E., A Relational Model for Large Shared Data Banks, Comm. ACM, Vol. 13, No. 6, 1970. [4] Atkinson, M. P., et al., The Object-Oriented Database System Manifesto (A Political Pamphlet), Proc. 1st Intl. Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, Kyoto, Japan, Dec. 1989. [5] Cattell, R. G. G., and D. Barry (eds.), The Object Database Standard: ODMG 2.0, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1997. [6] Vaskevitch, D., Database in Crisis and Transition: A Technical Agenda for the Year 2001, Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, Minneapolis, MN, May 1994. [7] Sheth, A. P., and J. A. Larson, Federated Database Systems for Managing Distrib- uted, Heterogeneous, and Autonomous Databases, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 22, No. 3, Sept. 1990. [8] Elmagarmid, A., M. Rusinkiewicz, and A. Sheth (eds.), Management of Heterogeneous and Autonomous Database Systems, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1999. Component Database Systems 431 [9] Vaskevitch, D., Very Large Databases: How Large? How Different? Proc. 21st Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Zurich, Switzerland, Sept. 1995. [10] An Architecture for Database Management Standards, NBS Spec. Pub. 500-85, Computer Corporation of America, 1982. [11] Härder, T., and A. Reuter, Concepts for Implementing a Centralized Database Man- agement System, Proc. Intl. Computing Symposium on Application Systems Develop- ment, Nuernberg, Germany, Mar. 1983. [12] Ramakrishnan, R., Database Management Systems, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. [13] Astrahan, M. M., et al., System R: Relational Approach to Database Management, ACM Trans. on Database Systems, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1976. [14] Allen, P., and S. Frost, Component-Based Development for Enterprise Systems, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998. [15] Griffel, F., Componentware, Heidelberg, Germany: Dpunkt.Verlag, 1998. [16] Hamilton, D. (ed.), Java Beans, Version 1.01, Sun Microsystems, 1997. [17] Krieger, D., and R. M. Adler, The Emergence of Distributed Component Plat- forms, IEEE Computer, Vol. 31, No. 3, Mar. 1998. [18] Nierstrasz, O., and L. Dami, Component-Oriented Software Technology, in O. Nierstrasz and D. Tsichritzis (eds.), Object-Oriented Software Composition, London, UK: Prentice-Hall, 1995. [19] Nierstrasz, O., and T. D. Meijler, Beyond Objects: Components, in M. P. Papazoglou and G. Schlageter (eds.), Cooperative Information Systems: Trends and Directions, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1998. [20] Orfali, R., D. Harkey, and J. Edwards, The Essential Client/Server Survival Guide, 2nd ed., New York: Wiley, 1996. [21] Perry, D. E., and A. L. Wolf, Foundations for the Study of Software Architectures, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1992. [22] Shaw, M., and D. Garlan, Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996. [23] Geppert, A., and K. R. Dittrich, Bundling: Towards a New Construction Paradigm for Persistent Systems, Networking and Information Systems J., Vol. 1, No. 1, June 1998. [24] Stonebraker, M., and P. Brown, Object-Relational DBMSs, 2nd ed., San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1999. [25] Developing DataBlade Modules for Informix Dynamic Server With Universal Data Option, White Paper, Informix Corp., Menlo Park, CA, 1998. [26] DB2 Relational Extenders, White Paper, IBM Corp., May 1995. 432 Advanced Database Technology and Design [27] Oracle8 Object-Relational Data Server: The Next Generation of Database Technol- ogy, Oracle Business White Paper, June 1997. [28] Bliujute, R., et al., Developing a DataBlade for a New Index, Proc. 15th Intl. Conf. on Data Engineering, Sydney, Australia, Mar. 1999. [29] Dessloch, S., and N. M. Mattos, Integrating SQL Databases With Content-Specific Search Engines, Proc. 23rd Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Athens, Greece, Aug. 1997. [30] Gaede, V., and O. Guenther, Multidimensional Access Methods, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 30, No. 2, June 1998. [31] Bayer, R., and M. Schkolnick, Concurrency of Operations on B-Trees, Acta Infor- matica, Vol. 9, 1977. [32] Kornacker, M., C. Mohan, and J. M. Hellerstein, Concurrency and Recovery in Generalized Search Trees, Proc. ACM SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, Tucson, AZ, May 1997. [33] Blakeley, J. A., OLE DB: A Component DBMS Architecture, Proc. 12th Intl. Conf. on Data Engineering (ICDE), New Orleans, LA, Feb./Mar. 1996. [34] Blakeley, J. A., Data Access for the Masses Through OLE DB, Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, Montreal, Canada, June 1996. [35] OLE DB Programmers Reference: Version 1.0, Vol. 2, Microsoft Corp., July 1996. [36] Tork Roth, M., and P. Schwarz, Dont Scrap It, Wrap It! A Wrapper Architecture for Legacy Data Sources, Proc. 23rd Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Athens, Greece, Aug. 1997. [37] Haas, L. M., et al., Optimizing Queries Across Diverse Data Sources, Proc. 23rd Intl. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), Athens, Greece, Aug. 1997. [38] Olson, S., et al., The Sybase Architecture for Extensible Data Management, Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 3, Sept. 1998. [39] CORBAservices: Common Object Services Specification, The Object Management Group, Mar. 1995. [40] The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification, Revision 2.1, The Object Management Group, Aug. 1997. [41] Bernstein, P. A., and E. Newcomer, Principles of Transaction Processing for the Systems Professional, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1996. [42] Elmagarmid, A. K. (ed.), Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1992. [43] Geppert, A., and K. R. Dittrich, Strategies and Techniques: Reusable Artifacts for the Construction of Database Management Systems, Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE), Jyväskylä, Finland, June 1995. Component Database Systems 433 TEAMFLY Team-Fly ® [44] Geppert, A., S. Scherrer, and K. R. Dittrich, KIDS: A Construction Approach for Database Management Systems Based on Reuse, Tech. Report 97.01, Dept. of Com- puter Science, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, Jan. 1997. [45] Chrysanthis, P. K., and K. Ramamritham, Synthesis of Extended Transaction Mod- els Using ACTA, ACM Trans. on Database Systems, Vol. 19, No. 3, Sept. 1994. [46] Gueting, R. H., Second-Order Signature: A Tool for Specifying Data Models, Query Processing, and Optimization, Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, Washington, DC, May 1993. [47] Stonebraker, M., P. Brown, and M. Herbach, Interoperability, Distributed Applica- tions and Distributed Databases: The Virtual Table Interface, Bulletin of the Techni- cal Committee on Data Engineering, Vol. 21, No. 3, Sept. 1998. [48] Batini, C., S. Ceri, and S. B. Navathe, Conceptual Database Design: An Entity- Relationship Approach, Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings, 1992. [49] Elmasri, R., and S. B. Navathe, Fundamentals of Database Systems, 2nd ed., Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummings, 1994. [50] Chen, P. P., The Entity-Relationship ModelTowards a Unified View of Data, ACM Trans. on Database Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1976. [51] Booch, G., I. Jacobson, and J. Rumbaugh, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1999. [52] ACT-NET Consortium, The Active Database Management System Manifesto: A Rulebase of ADBMS Features, ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 25, No. 3, Sept. 1996. [53] Lohman, G. M., et al., Extensions to Starburst: Objects, Types, Functions, and Rules, Comm. ACM, Vol. 34, No. 10, 1991. [54] Ram, S., and V. Ramesh, Schema Integration: Past, Present, and Future, in A. Elmagarmid, M. Rusinkiewicz, and A. Sheth (eds.), Management of Heterogeneous and Autonomous Database Systems, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1999. [55] Batory, D. S., T. Y. Leung, and T. E. Wise, Implementation Concepts for an Exten- sible Data Model and Data Language, ACM Trans. on Database Systems, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1988. [56] Biliris, A., and E. Panagos, Transactions in the Client-Server EOS Object Store, Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. on Data Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, Mar. 1995. [57] Biliris, A., and E. Panagos, A High Performance Configurable Storage Manager, Proc. 11th Intl. Conf. on Data Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, Mar. 1995. [58] Blakeley, J. A., Open OODB: Architecture and Query Processing Overview, in A. Dogac, et al. (eds.), Advances in Object-Oriented Database Systems, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994. [59] Blott, A., L. Relly, and H. J. Schek, An Open Abstract-Object Storage System, Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, Montreal, Canada, June 1996. 434 Advanced Database Technology and Design [60] Carey, M. J., et al., Storage Management for Objects in EXODUS, in W. Kim and F. H. Lochovsky (eds.), Object-Oriented Concepts, Databases, and Applications, New York: ACM Press, 1989. [61] Carey, M. J., et al., The Architecture of the EXODUS Extensible DBMS, in K. R. Dittrich, U. Dayal, and A. P. Buchmann (eds.), On Object-Oriented Database Systems, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991. [62] Chou, H. T., et al., Design and Implementation of the Wisconsin Storage System, SoftwarePractice and Experience, Vol. 15, No. 10, 1985. [63] Graefe, G., and D. J. DeWitt, The EXODUS Optimizer Generator, Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, San Francisco, CA, May 1987. [64] Lindsay, B., J. McPherson, and H. Pirahesh, A Data Management Extension Archi- tecture, Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, San Francisco, CA, May 1987. [65] Paul, H. B., et al., Architecture and Implementation of the Darmstadt Database Ker- nel System, Proc. ACM-SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, San Francisco, CA, May 1987. [66] Stonebraker, M., Inclusion of New Types in Relational Database Systems, Proc. Intl. Conf. on Database Systems, Los Angeles, CA, Feb. 1986. [67] Unland, R., and G. Schlageter, A Transaction Manager Development Facility for Non-Standard Database Systems, in A. K. Elmagarmid (ed.), Database Transaction Models for Advanced Applications, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1992. [68] Wells, D. L., J. A. Blakeley, and C. W. Thompson, Architecture of an Open Object- Oriented Database Management System, IEEE Computer, Vol. 25, No. 10, 1992. [69] Geppert, A., and K. R. Dittrich, Constructing the Next 100 Database Management Systems: Like the Handyman or Like the Engineer? ACM SIGMOD Record, Vol. 23, No. 1, Mar. 1994. [70] Haas, L. M., et al., Extensible Query Processing in Starburst, Proc. ACM SIGMOD Intl. Conf. on Management of Data, Portland, OR, May/June 1989. Component Database Systems 435 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Part III: Advanced Design Issues This Page Intentionally Left Blank 13 CASE Tools: Computer Support for Conceptual Modeling Mokrane Bouzeghoub, Zoubida Kedad, and Elisabeth Métais 13.1 Introduction to CASE Tools The acronym CASE (computer-aided software engineering) implies two aspects: software engineering and computer aid. Software engineering refers to the activities of analysis, design, implementation, and maintenance of information systems, to which we can add the complementary tasks of verifi- cation, assessment, and validation of all the decisions that have been taken and products that have been generated during the projects life cycle. Com- puter aid concerns all the possible supports that a computer can provide to facilitate the project management and documentation, to control the com- plexity of a design, and to reason on the specifications and models. CASE technology emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s with code generation and program testing. The success of relational DBs encouraged the development of data dictionaries and the maintenance of design traces. The explosion of computer graphics and workstations imposed CASE tools by providing attractive interfaces and by opening up a new era of cooperative distributed design and development. Evolution of traditional languages 439 from third generation to fourth generation and the success of reusable object libraries accompanying object-oriented languages like C++ and Java confirmed CASE tools as an advanced technology that cannot be bypassed in the development of modern information systems. Current CASE tools have sparse functionalities, cover different phases in a projects life cycle, and are based on different formal specification mod- els. This makes a comparison difficult. There is no standard architecture for a CASE tool, only products that address specific activities in software engineer- ing. The project actors see CASE tools from their individual perspectives and from their own roles in the software project. Many classifications of CASE tools have been proposed; they are either based on the projects life cycle (analysis, design, implementation, validation, maintenance, administration, etc.), on the level of abstraction (upper CASEs, middle CASEs, and lower CASEs), or on the degree of automation (manual tools; semiautomated, or interactive, tools; fully automated tools). Programming experts focus on process modeling, formal verification of program behavior, and code genera- tion. Database experts focus on conceptual data modeling, physical DB design, and integrity constraints validation. Project managers focus on data dictionaries, report generation, and assessment techniques. The daisy in Figure 13.1 gives a flavor of an ideal integrated CASE toolset. The figure highlights a set of functionalities provided by CASE tools independently of any specific methodology and classification. One can imag- ine as many CASE environments as combinations of petals in the daisy. Among CASE tools we can distinguish those related to project manage- ment and control, those related to DB modeling, those related to process modeling, and those related to IS administration and maintenance. The baseline of these tools is the knowledge repository that groups all the meta- data concerning the application domain, the products and the processes of the project, and the generic reusable components. The cornerstone of the toolset is the fundamental inference and reasoning mechanisms that can be used by various tools. Graphical interfaces constitute a convenient way to synthesize specifications and to give a rapid understanding of the semantics of the system under construction. 13.1.1 Functional Classification of CASE Tools The functional classification of tools given in Table 13.1 is not exhaustive, but it gives a good view of the diversity of CASE tools that support software engineering projects. 440 Advanced Database Technology and Design [...]... the design and maintenance activities It contains metadata describing DBs and processes, cross referencing between data and processes, inputs and outputs of each CASE tool, metamodels driving the tools, design decisions, history of changes, trace of simulations, and so on The repository is a common shared memory between CASE tools and between designers and programmers The Team-Fly® 444 Advanced Database. .. modeling, and design validation 13.2 A CASE Framework for Database Design Database design has been widely investigated and explored during the past three decades Many design frameworks have been proposed, and there is a consensus to distinguish among four abstraction levels: external, conceptual, logical, and physical design Based on these levels, different modeling notations, techniques, and approaches... Modeling 445 that knowledge and form conceptual and logical schemas, how these are schemas validated and transformed into low-level representations, and how they are verified and validated Our aim is to provide the basic ideas that govern the design and implementation of a CASE tool and to show the balance between what a CASE tool can do and what remains the designers’ creativity and decisions We particularly... Early provided design tools support relational normalization, schema mapping between the entityrelationship model and the relational model, and DDL generation The early 198 0s saw the promotion of expert systems and knowledge-based tools that integrated heuristics, design alternatives, and high-level interaction with the human designer [6] The late 198 0s confirmed the industrial use of DB design tools;... complexity of 446 Advanced Database Technology and Design User/designer Natural language interface Graphical interface Knowledge Domain and application knowledge Formal and semiformal interface Acquisition Paraphrasing/ validation Data abstraction and structuring VIEW1 Linguistic knowledge VIEW2 VIEW3 View integration Conceptual schema Verification Rules, dependencies Transformation and normalization... engineering market The 199 0s saw the emergence of object-oriented languages and methodologies with their companion tools Database design tools gained in maturity and in complexity To understand the role and the contribution of these tools, we use the framework in Figure 13.3 The framework serves as an ideal CASE environment, one that illustrates most of the possible tools related to DB design Knowledge acquisition... tools for project management (e.g., Platinum Process Continuum by Platinum Technology, Autoplan by Digital Tools, and MS-Project by Microsoft) are not specific to software engineering but are taken among 442 Advanced Database Technology and Design Table 13.1 Functional Classification of CASE Tools Project Management Database Tools Design Tools Process Modeling Tools Project planning Conceptual modeling... following description, the third sentence is redundant to the first two: “A person has a name and age An employee is a person Team-Fly® 454 Advanced Database Technology and Design An employee has a name and an age.” Again, in the following example, there is a redundancy, but it is an underhanded one: “Employees and secretaries are persons A secretary is an employee.” Indeed, the second sentence makes... existing files and DBs, and those that derive conceptual schemas from natural language sentences 13.3.2.1 Creative Design Creative design is a modeling activity that starts from scratch or, more precisely, from the informal knowledge a designer has in mind Every conceptual entity and relationship is abstracted directly from the designer’s perception of the real world Actually, many DB schemas are designed... by changing specifications and propagating the change to the implementation, by changing technology and migrating data and code to the new one, and by improving performance with DB tuning or program tuning Multiple-version management and code inspection for errors are also among administration tools Administration and maintenance activities may result in inconsistencies and inefficiencies Decision . CA, 199 8. [26] DB2 Relational Extenders, White Paper, IBM Corp., May 199 5. 432 Advanced Database Technology and Design [27] Oracle8 Object-Relational Data Server: The Next Generation of Database. Rusinkiewicz, and A. Sheth (eds.), Management of Heterogeneous and Autonomous Database Systems, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 199 9. Component Database Systems 431 [9] Vaskevitch, D., Very Large Databases:. Kyoto, Japan, Dec. 198 9. [5] Cattell, R. G. G., and D. Barry (eds.), The Object Database Standard: ODMG 2.0, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 199 7. [6] Vaskevitch, D., Database in Crisis and Transition: