![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Return to Research Session 4: Data Integration and Interoperability who studied composition of mappings given by several kinds of constraints. In particular, they proved that full source-to-target tuplegenerating dependencies (tgds) are closed under composition, but embedded source-to-target tgds are not. They introduced a class of second-order constraints, SO tgds, that is closed under composition and has desirable properties for data exchange. We study constraints that need not be source-to-target and we concentrate on obtaining (first-order) embedded dependencies. As part of this study, we also consider full dependencies and secondorder constraints that arise from Skolemizing embedded dependencies. For each of the three classes of mappings that we study, we provide (a) an algorithm that attempts to compute the composition and (b) sufficient conditions on the input mappings that guarantee that the algorithm will succeed. In addition, we give several negative results. In particular, we show that full dependencies are not closed under composition, and that second-order dependencies that are not limited to be sourceto- target are not closed under restricted composition. Furthermore, we show that determining whether the composition can be given by these kinds of dependencies is undecidable. ![]() ©2006 Association for Computing Machinery |