Identity-Based Change Operations for Composite Objects∗

Incorporating abstraction methods, such as aggregation and association, into information system design methodologies has improved our ability to model the real world. The semantically-higher level objects that result from these abstractions are referred to as composite objects. These objects play an important role in spatio-temporal knowledge representation and query formulation, although little has been done so far on formalizing operations involving these types of objects. In this investigation, the semantics associated with composite objects are explored as is the role of object identity for composite objects. Object identity refers to that trait which distinguishes an object from all others. The different semantics associated with creating composite objects and adding parts to composites are discussed and a set of basic identity-based change operations for composites, including separation and elimination operations, are described. Formalizing the operations relating to composite objects aids in improving current spatial data models and leads to advances in spatial-temporal query languages.

[1]  Jay Banerjee,et al.  Composite object support in an object-oriented database system , 1987, OOPSLA '87.

[2]  Bernhard Mitschang,et al.  Extending the Relational Algebra to Capture Complex Objects , 1989, VLDB.

[3]  Michael L. Brodie.  On the Development of Data Models , 1982, On Conceptual Modelling.

[4]  Nicola Guarino,et al.  Modeling Parts and Wholes , 1996, Data Knowl. Eng..

[5]  Achille C. Varzi,et al.  Holes and Other Superficialities , 1994 .

[6]  Elisa Bertino,et al.  Composite objects revisited , 1989, SIGMOD '89.

[7]  Michael L. Brodie,et al.  On Conceptual Modelling , 1984, Topics in Information Systems.

[8]  James Geller,et al.  An OODB "Part" Relationship Model , 1992, CIKM 1992.

[9]  Douglas Herrmann,et al.  A Taxonomy of Part-Whole Relations , 1987, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Roger King,et al.  Semantic Data Models , 1985, Principles of Database Design.

[11]  Barry Smith,et al.  On Drawing Lines on a Map , 1995, COSIT.

[12]  Renate Motschnig.  The Semantics of Parts Versus Aggregates in Data/Knowledge Modelling , 1993, CAiSE.

[13]  Setrag Khoshafian,et al.  Object identity , 1986, OOPSLA 1986.

[14]  Max J. Egenhofer,et al.  Qualitative Representation of Change , 1997, COSIT.

[15]  Andrew U. Frank,et al.  Spatial Information Theory A Theoretical Basis for GIS , 1993, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  Setrag Khoshafian,et al.  Multimedia and imaging databases , 1995 .

[17]  Timothy Williamson,et al.  Parts. A Study in Ontology , 1990 .

[18]  Won Kim,et al.  Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond , 1995, Modern Database Systems.

[19]  Ulrich Schiel.  Abstractions in semantic networks: axiom schemata for generalization, aggregation and grouping , 1989, SGAR.

[20]  David Dubin,et al.  MultiMedia and Imaging Databases , 1996, Information Processing & Management.

[21]  Nectaria Tryfona,et al.  Consistency among parts and aggregates: A computational model , 1996, Trans. GIS.

[22]  Eliseo Clementini,et al.  Composite Regions in Topological Queries , 1995, Inf. Syst..

[23]  D. Cruse.  On the transitivity of the part-whole relation , 1979, Journal of Linguistics.

[24]  Roberto Casati,et al.  Spatial Entities , 1997 .

[25]  B. Tversky,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : General VOL . 113 , No . 2 JUNE 1984 Objects , Parts , and Categories , 2005 .

[26]  Diane C. P. Smith,et al.  Database abstractions: aggregation , 1977, CACM.