G. Saake and U. W. Lipeck. Using Finite-Linear Temporal Logic for Specifying Database Dynamics. LNCS, 533:288--300, 1988.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....activity In the following section, we remind the basics of this algorithm and we show how they have been adapted and then integrated in our environment. 5 Monitoring Algorithm The general idea of this algorithm is that each activity constraint is transformed into deterministic transition graph [15]. The graphs are used to monitor their corresponding constraints. To each constraint corresponds a graph. It describes the life cycle of the objects (object combination) which are concerned by the constraint. The nodes correspond to situations in the life cycle. They are labelled with temporal ....

G. Saake and U. W. Lipeck. Using Finite-Linear Temporal Logic for Specifying Database Dynamics. LNCS, 533:288--300, 1988.

....is not acceptable. We don t allow to an activity to abort its work. In the following section, we remind the basics of these algorithms and we show how they have been adapted and then integrated in our environment. 5 Monitoring Algorithms Activity constraints are transformed into graphs [LF88, SL88] To each constraint corresponds a graph. This graph describes the life cycles of the objects (object combination) in the interface 7 ctr is a function which gives the current activity of the constraint, which are allowed by the constraint, i.e which don t violate the constraint. The nodes ....

Gunter Saake and Udo W. Lipeck. Using Finite-Linear Temporal Logic for Specifying Database Dynamics. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 533:288--300, 1988.

....This gave rise to the introduction of the new rule formalism, where alternative actions are supported. In the remainder of this section, we compare our formalism for specifying temporal rule conditions with other approaches. Other Temporal Logics: The work that is closest to ours is presented in [2, 3, 23, 24]. In [2, 3] Chomicki considers a first order temporal logic with past temporal operators (FPTL) for specifying and maintaining Real time Dynamic Integrity Constraints of relational databases. FPTL uses first order quantifiers, whereas PTL uses the assignment operator. This operator can be viewed ....

....cannot be expressed concisely using the formalism of [3] The following condition is one such example: Three events A; B; C occur in that order within a span of 60 minutes. Additionally, Chomicki s logic and processing method are strongly tied to the relational model. The work presented in [23, 24] considers temporal logic with future (as opposed to past) operators for specifying temporal integrity constraints. This logic, called Propositional Temporal Logic, does not allow quantifiers and thus is less expressive. In [37] we also concentrate on future TL (that uses future temporal operators ....

U. W. Lipeck and Gunter Saake, Using Finite-Linear Temporal Logic for Specifying Database Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag 1988.

....the above procedure is repeated after the next database update which changes either P or Q. Therefore, clearly, no information has to be saved from one database state to the next, and the evaluation is incremental. Other Temporal Logics: The work that is closest to ours is presented in [4, 5, 22, 23]. In [4, 5] Chomicki considers a first order temporal logic with past temporal operators (FPTL) for specifying and maintaining Realtime Dynamic Integrity Constraints of relational databases. FPTL is similar to PTL, except that FPTL uses first order quantifiers whereas PTL uses the assignment ....

....that gives the value of the time. The above formula states that if A is satisfied in the current state and T has the value of currenttime, then eventually B occurs, followed by C; additionally, at the occurrence of C the value of currenttime is less than or equal to T 60. The work presented in [22, 23] considers temporal logic with future operators for specifying dynamic integrity constraints. In this work a procedure for maintenance of the integrity for a subset of the logic is given. This logic, called Propositional Temporal Logic, does not allow any first order quantifiers. Our logic is more ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

U. W. Lipeck and Gunter Saake, Using Finite-Linear Temporal Logic for Specifying Database Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag 1988.

....and transition graphs as introduced in our former work to include not only partial, but also complete finite sequences. To this end, we appropriately modify the semantics of temporal formulae and the notion of correct transition graphs. One approach in this direction has already been followed in [Sa88, SaL89, Sa91]: To replace the critical operator next which refers to a (perhaps non existing) next state, new temporal quantifiers existsnext and allnext were introduced; they require the validity of a formula in the tail sequence starting from the next state either together with the existence of the state ....

Saake, G. and Lipeck, U.W.: Using Finite-Linear Temporal Logic for Specifying Database Dynamics. Proc. 2nd Workshop on Computer Science Logic (E.Borger et al., eds.), LNCS 385, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1989, 288--300.

....l = minffk j (oe k ; i; # k ) j= g [ fjoejgg. 9) oe; i; #) j= before iff there exists j, i j l, such that (oe; j; #) j= where l is defined as in (9) 10) We will not give a detailed description of properties of FL Sigma (X) The interested reader can find more about this logic in [SL89] Let us now give the formal syntax definition of FTTL formulae in T ROLL . We decided not to introduce the existsnext temporal quantor since existsnext = next: always holds. fut formula : fut formula = fut rel form j fut rel form fut rel form : fut rel form = fut ....

....that restrict the possible evolutions of attribute values over time are called dynamic constraints. Static constraints are formulae of first order logic as described in Section 2.2. Dynamic constraints are formulae of Future Tense Temporal Logic as described in Section 2.3. 2 [Ser80, Lip89, SL89] Please note that constraints implicitly also restrict the admissible behavior of objects in that certain state transitions (i.e. event occurrences) are not permitted. Please note that syntactically, we do not distinguish static and dynamic constraints. For accounts, we may e.g. state the ....

Saake, G.; Lipeck, U.W.: Using Finite-Linear Temporal Logic for Specifying Database Dynamics. In: Borger, E.; Kleine Buning, H.; Richter, M.M. (eds.): Proc. CSL'88 2nd Workshop Computer Science Logic, Berlin, 1989. SpringerVerlag, pp. 288--300.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC