Cardinality Constraints for Uncertain Data

Modern applications require advanced techniques and tools to process large volumes of uncertain data. For that purpose we introduce cardinality constraints as a principled tool to control the occurrences of uncertain data. Uncertainty is modeled qualitatively by assigning to each object a degree of possibility by which the object occurs in an uncertain instance. Cardinality constraints are assigned a degree of certainty that stipulates on which objects they hold. Our framework empowers users to model uncertainty in an intuitive way, without the requirement to put a precise value on it. Our class of cardinality constraints enjoys a natural possible world semantics, which is exploited to establish several tools to reason about them. We characterize the associated implication problem axiomatically and algorithmically in linear input time. Furthermore, we show how to visualize any given set of our cardinality constraints in the form of an Armstrong instance, whenever possible. Even though the problem of finding an Armstrong instance is precisely exponential, our algorithm computes an Armstrong instance with conservative use of time and space. Data engineers and domain experts can jointly inspect Armstrong instances in order to consolidate the certainty by which a cardinality constraint shall hold in the underlying application domain.

[1]  Sven Hartmann,et al.  On the implication problem for cardinality constraints and functional dependencies , 2001, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[2]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Fuzzy set and possibility theory-based methods in artificial intelligence , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Bernhard Thalheim,et al.  Semantics in Databases , 2001, Semantics in Databases.

[4]  Peretz Shoval,et al.  Conceptual Modeling - ER 2010, 29th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Vancouver, BC, Canada, November 1-4, 2010. Proceedings , 2010, ER.

[5]  Faiz Currim,et al.  The CARD System , 2010, ER.

[6]  Sven Hartmann,et al.  Design by example for SQL table definitions with functional dependencies , 2012, The VLDB Journal.

[7]  D. Dubois,et al.  Fuzzy cardinality and the modeling of imprecise quantification , 1985 .

[8]  Christopher Ré,et al.  Probabilistic databases , 2011, SIGA.

[9]  Heikki Mannila,et al.  Design by Example: An Application of Armstrong Relations , 1986, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[10]  Maurizio Lenzerini,et al.  On The Satisfiability of Dependency Constraints in Entity-Relationship Schemata , 1987, VLDB.

[11]  Sven Hartmann,et al.  Efficiency frontiers of XML cardinality constraints , 2013, Data Knowl. Eng..

[12]  Günther Pernul,et al.  Entity-Relationship Approach — ER '92 , 1992 .

[13]  David W. Embley,et al.  Cardinality Constraints in Semantic Data Models , 1993, Data Knowl. Eng..

[14]  Sebastian Link,et al.  Armstrong Databases: Validation, Communication and Consolidation of Conceptual Models with Perfect Test Data , 2012, APCCM.

[15]  Bernhard Thalheim,et al.  Fundamentals of Cardinality Constraints , 1992, ER.

[16]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Horn clauses and database dependencies , 1982, JACM.

[17]  Patrick Bosc,et al.  On the impact of regular functional dependencies when moving to a possibilistic database framework , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[18]  Sebastian Link,et al.  Empirical evidence for the usefulness of Armstrong relations in the acquisition of meaningful functional dependencies , 2010, Inf. Syst..

[19]  Il-Yeol Song,et al.  Analysis of Binary/Ternary Cardinality Combinations in Entity-Relationship Modeling , 1996, Data Knowl. Eng..

[20]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  OCL-Lite: Finite reasoning on UML/OCL conceptual schemas , 2012, Data Knowl. Eng..

[21]  Sebastian Link Consistency Enforcement in Databases , 2001, Semantics in Databases.