ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
On XML integrity constraints in the presence of DTDs
Full text PdfPdf (399 KB)
Source Journal of the ACM (JACM) archive
Volume 49 ,  Issue 3  (May 2002) table of contents
Pages: 368 - 406  
Year of Publication: 2002
ISSN:0004-5411
Authors
Wenfei Fan  Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey
Leonid Libkin  University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 15,   Downloads (12 Months): 84,   Citation Count: 33
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/567112.567117
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The article investigates XML document specifications with DTDs and integrity constraints, such as keys and foreign keys. We study the consistency problem of checking whether a given specification is meaningful: that is, whether there exists an XML document that both conforms to the DTD and satisfies the constraints. We show that DTDs interact with constraints in a highly intricate way and as a result, the consistency problem in general is undecidable. When it comes to unary keys and foreign keys, the consistency problem is shown to be NP-complete. This is done by coding DTDs and integrity constraints with linear constraints on the integers. We consider the variations of the problem (by both restricting and enlarging the class of constraints), and identify a number of tractable cases, as well as a number of additional NP-complete ones. By incorporating negations of constraints, we establish complexity bounds on the implication problem, which is shown to be coNP-complete for unary keys and foreign keys.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
Apparao, V., et al.1998. Document Object Model (DOM) Level 1 Specification. W3C Recommendation, Oct. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-DOM-Level-1/.
4
 
5
 
6
Bray, T., Paoli, J., and Sperberg-McQueen, C. M.1998. Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0. W3C Recommendation, Feb. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/.
7
 
8
9
 
10
 
11
Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., and Lenzerini, M.1999. Representing and reasoning on XML documents: A description logic approach. J. Logic Comput. 9, 3, 295--318.
12
 
13
 
14
Chamberlin, D., et al. 2001. XQuery 1.0: An XML query language. W3C Working Draft, June. http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery.
 
15
Clark, J.1999. XSL Transformations (XSLT). W3C Recommendation, Nov. http://www.w3.org/TR/xslt.
 
16
Clark. J., and DeRose, S.1999. XML Path Language (XPath). W3C Recommendation, Nov. http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath.
17
18
19
 
20
 
21
Florescu, D., Raschid, L., and Valduriez, P.1996. A methodology for query reformulation in CIS using semantic knowledge. Int'l J. Cooperative Information Systems (IJCIS) 5, 4, 431--468.
 
22
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
Kanellakis, P. C.1980. On the computational complexity of cardinality constraints in relational databases. Inf. Proc. Lett. 11, 2, 98--101.
 
27
Layman, A., et al.1998. XML-Data. W3C Note, Jan. http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/ NOTE-XML-data.
 
28
Lee, D., and Chu, W. W. 2000. Constraint-preserving transformation from XML document type to relational schema. In ER'00. pp. 323--338.
 
29
Lenstra, H. W.1983. Integer programming in a fixed number of variables. Math. Oper. Res. 8, 538--548.
 
30
 
31
32
33
 
34
 
35
Robie, J., Lapp, J., and Schach, D. 1998. XML query language (XQL). Workshop on XML Query Languages, Dec.
 
36
Thompson, H. S., et al.2000. XML Schema. W3C Working Draft, May. http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema.
 
37
 
38
Widom, J.1999. Data management for XML: Research directions. In IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 22, 3, 44--52.

CITED BY  33

Collaborative Colleagues:
Wenfei Fan: colleagues
Leonid Libkin: colleagues