Soft constraints and heuristic constraint correction in entity-relationship modelling

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2582, Issue , 2003, Pages 82-99

  Hartmann, Sven ^a  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA MINING; SEMANTICS;

CARDINALITY CONSTRAINTS; ENTITY-RELATIONSHIP; INTEGRITY CONSTRAINTS; SOFT CONSTRAINT;

CONSTRAINT THEORY;

EID: 35248816466     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-36596-6_5     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. M. Albrecht, E. Buchholz, A. Düsterhöft, and B. Thalheim. An informal and efficient approach for obtaining semantic constraints using sample data and natural language processing. LNCS, 1358:1-11, 1996.
2. D. Calvanese and M. Lenzerini. On the interaction between ISA and cardinality constraints. In Proc. of Tenth Int. Conf. on Data Engin., pp. 204-213, 1994.
3. B.V. Cherkassy and A.V. Goldberg. Negative cycle detection algorithms. Math. Programming, 85:277-311, 1998.
4. B.V. Cherkassy, A.V. Goldberg, and T. Radzik. Shortest path algorithms: theory and experimental evaluation. Math. Programming, 73:129-174, 1996.
5. E. Di Nitto and L. Tanca. Dealing with deviations in DBMSs: an approach to revise consistency constraints. Integrity in Databases, FMLDO96, pp. 11-24. 1996.
6. A.V. Goldberg and T. Radzik. A heuristic improvement of the Bellman-Ford algorithm. Appl. Math. Letters, 6:3-6, 1993.
7. M. Gondran and M. Minoux. Graphs and algorithms. Wiley, Chichecter, 1990.
8. S. Hartmann. Graphtheoretic methods to construct entity-relationship databases. LNCS, 1017:131-145, 1995.
9. S. Hartmann. On the consistency of hit-cardinality constraints. LNCS, 1507:150-163, 1998.
10. S. Hartmann. On the implication problem for cardinality constraints and functional dependencies. Annals Math. Artificial Intell., 33:253-307, 2001.
11. S. Hartmann. Coping with inconsistent constraint specifications. LNCS, 2224:241-255, 2001.
12. W. Kent. Consequences of assuming a universal relation. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 6:539-556, 1981.
13. 3) expected time. In Proc. 5th Int. Prog. Combin. Opt. Conf. 1996.
14. K. Kwast. A deontic approach to database integrity. Annals Math. Artificial Intell., 9:205-238, 1993.
15. M.L Lee and T.W. Ling. Resolving constraint conflicts in the integration of entity-relationship schemas. LNCS, 1331:394-407, 1997.
16. M. Lenzerini and P. Nobili. On the satisfiability of dependency constraints in entity-relationship schemata. Inform. Systems, 15:453-461, 1990.
17. S.W. Liddle, D.W. Embley, and S.N. Woodfield. Cardinality constraints in semantic data models. Data Knowledge Engrg., 11:235-270, 1993.
18. H. Mannila and K. Räihä. The design of relational databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1992.
19. J.-J.Ch. Meyer, R.J. Wieringa, and F.P.M. Dignum. The role of deontic logic in the specification of information systems. In J. Chomicki and G. Saako, editors, Logics for databases and information systems, pages 71-116. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998.
20. R.E. Tarjan. Data structures and network algorithms. SIAM, Philadelphia, 1983.
21. B. Thalheim. Foundations of entity-relationship modeling. Annals Math. Artificial Intell., 6:197-256, 1992.
22. B. Thalheim. Entity-relationship modeling. Springer, Berlin, 2000.
23. D. Theodorates. Deductive object oriented schemas. LNCS, 1157:58-72, 1996.