"... In PAGE 86: ... For example, the word operacion occurred several times in these texts and was hard to disambiguate between its WORK-ACTIVITY, MILITARY-OPERATION, SURGERY, and FINANCIAL- TRANSACTION senses. It can also be noted from Table1 that syntactic information contributed to about 38% of word sense disambiguation (18 of 48, on an average, were disambiguated by syntax). Often, syntactic binding eliminates word senses and makes an ambiguous word unambiguous in its syntactic context.... ..."

"... In PAGE 12: ...price product_no product_name length width project_state max_speed nv_ref delivery_period voltage drc_is_tm_ref drc_not_tm_ref B1 B2 B3 B7 B4 A3 A5 A3 A3 A3 B4 B7 B7 B7 A1 A4 A1 RCnotDRC TMisRC TMnotRC NV TMis TMisDRC DRCnotTM RCnotDRC notTM 1 2 3 4 5 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 B6 B6 B6 B6 6 H D G E C A B F A2 B5 A1 A1 Figure 9: Derivation of an object-oriented integrated schema Derived Classes Extensions Intensions Integrity Constraints A Product 1,2,3,4,5,6 4 X1 B TM 1,2,3,4 4,5 X2,X3,X4 C RC 3,4,5,6 3,4 X1,X5,X6,X7 D TMnotRC 1 4,5,6 X2,X3,X4,X8 E DRC 4,5 2,3,4 X1,X5,X6 F TMisRC 3,4 3,4,5 X2,X3,X5,X6 G TMisDRC 4 2,3,4,5 X2,X3,X5,X6 H NV 7 1 X9,X10,X11 Table 3: Derived classes and integrity constraints Table 3 shows the name, the intension and the extension of each derived class in correspondence to Figure 9. Table4 contains the meaning of the new integrity constraints. The composition to the class G necessitates a further transformation step.... ..."

"... In PAGE 18: ...In DB2, explicit unique/primary key constraints are disallowed for subtables. Foreign Key Constraints and Restrictions on Reference Columns As depicted in Table1 , all reference systems implement the simple match rule for referential constraints. Besides, MSSQL, Sybase, and Ingres purely rely on the no action rules for deletions from and updates of the referenced table.... In PAGE 18: ... Besides, MSSQL, Sybase, and Ingres purely rely on the no action rules for deletions from and updates of the referenced table. The `(X) apos; marked elds in Table1 state that the corresponding systems implement this semantics but support neither the keyword ON DELETE NO ACTION nor the keyword ON UPDATE NO ACTION. The delete cascade rule is supported by Oracle, DB2, and Informix, the delete set null rule only by Oracle and DB2, and the restrict rule solely by DB2.... ..."

"... In PAGE 13: ... In such case, the assigned element needs to be modified or the role instance has to be associated with more suitable element. Table1 lists some typical constraints for role r with an ancestor role s. Each expression given is evaluated in the context of some instance q of role r.... ..."

"... In PAGE 12: ...Table 3: Derived classes and integrity constraints Table3 shows the name, the intension and the extension of each derived class in correspondence to Figure 9. Table 4 contains the meaning of the new integrity constraints.... ..."

"... In PAGE 20: ...onstraints can be either enabled or disabled. These issues can also occur combined. For instance, an integrity constraint can be added to a table in the disabled mode or a disabled integrity constraint can be enabled but without verifying it against the current content of the corresponding table. In Table6 , we give an overview of the support of such features in SQL-99 and commercial database management systems. According to Table 6, Oracle supports the full range of schema evolution features that are related to integrity constraints.... In PAGE 20: ... In Table 6, we give an overview of the support of such features in SQL-99 and commercial database management systems. According to Table6 , Oracle supports the full range of schema evolution features that are related to integrity constraints. Another interesting fact is that SQL-99 does not provide any constructs for enabling and disabling integrity constraints.... In PAGE 23: ... Also, DB2 provides means to switch o the checking of integrity constraints. We have not marked this in Table6 because DB2 only allows very restricted access to tables with disabled integrity constraints. In fact, the content of the table cannot be manipulated.... ..."

"... In PAGE 5: ...BUCLAIM.MDB) for illustration purposes. The database contains 7 relations (CLAIMS, IMPORT ERRORS, KDB ARCHIVE FILES, KDB CLOSED, KDB DATA, POTENTIAL CLAIMS, WELDISP) with attributes ranging from 3 to 42 and tuples from 6 to 3534. The relations of CLAIMS database and the referential integral constraints are given in Table 1 and Table2 , respectively. Table 1.... In PAGE 5: ...The referential integral constraint is denoted by a 1 in Table2 . The referential integrity constraints are utilized to generate additional random retrieval transactions and additional delete transactions on the relations that reference it.... ..."

"... In PAGE 4: ...string lt;3 gt; int float string lt;6 gt; product_no product_name price delivery_period machine_class enum ps_type long long string lt;6 gt; project_state width length product_name product_no ROLLER_CONVEYOR(RC) string lt;20 gt; string lt;40 gt; TRANSPORT-MACHINE Sales-DB Construction-DB is_a DRIVEN_ROLLER_CONVEYOR(DRC) motor_voltages max_speed Set lt;float gt; float Figure 2: Existing local schemata Moreover, suppose that there are several integrity constraints de ned on these local schemata. Table1 summarizes all existing constraints.... ..."

"... In PAGE 7: ... In a temporal ER model, it would be natural to have both temporal versions of these, which apply over all of time, and snapshot reducible [19] versions, which apply in isolation at each single point in time. Table2 describe these constraints in turn.... ..."