skip to main content
10.1145/1807085.1807118acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Simplifying XML schema: single-type approximations of regular tree languages

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 June 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

XML Schema Definitions (XSDs) can be adequately abstracted by the single-type regular tree languages. It is well-known, that these form a strict subclass of the robust class of regular unranked tree languages. Sadly, in this respect, XSDs are not closed under the basic operations of union and set difference, complicating important tasks in schema integration and evolution. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the union and difference of two XSDs can be approximated within the framework of single-type regular tree languages. We consider both optimal lower and upper approximations. We also address the more general question of how to approximate an arbitrary regular tree language by an XSD and consider the complexity of associated decision problems.

References

  1. J. Albert, D. Giammerresi, and D. Wood. Normal form algorithms for extended context free grammars. Theoretical Computer Science, 267(1-2):35--47, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. D. Barbosa, L. Mignet, and P. Veltri. Studying the XML Web: Gathering statistics from an XML sample. World Wide Web, 8(4):413--438, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. P. A. Bernstein. Applying model management to classical meta data problems. In Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research (CIDR), 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. G. J. Bex, W. Gelade, W. Martens, and F. Neven. Simplifying XML Schema: e ffortless handling of nondeterministic regular expressions. In SIGMOD, pages 731--744, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. G. J. Bex, F. Neven, and S. Vansummeren. Inferring XML Schema Definitions from XML data. In International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pages 998--1009, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Mikolaj Bojanczyk. Forest expressions. In Jacques Duparc and Thomas A. Henzinger, editors, CSL, volume 4646 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 146--160. Springer, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. A. Bruggemann-Klein, M. Murata, and D. Wood. Regular tree and regular hedge languages over unranked alphabets: Version 1, april 3, 2001. Technical Report HKUST-TCSC-2001-0, The Hong kong University of Science and Technology, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. K. Ciesielski. Set Theory for the Working Mathematician. Cambridge University Press, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. J. Clark and M. Murata. Relax NG specification. http://www.relaxng.org/spec-20011203.html, December 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Gao, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, H.S. Thompson, N. Mendelsohn, D. Beech, and M. Maloney. W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 1: Structures. W3C, April 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. W. Gelade and F. Neven. Succinctness of the complement and intersection of regular expressions. In Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS), pages 325--336, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. W. Martens, F. Neven, and T. Schwentick. Simple off the shelf abstractions for XML Schema. Sigmod RECORD, 36(3):15--22, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. W. Martens, F. Neven, and T. Schwentick. Complexity of decision problems for XML schemas and chain regular expressions. Siam Journal on Computing, 39(4):1486--1530, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. W. Martens, F. Neven, T. Schwentick, and G.J. Bex. Expressiveness and complexity of XML Schema. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 31(3):770--813, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. W. Martens and J. Niehren. On the minimization of xml schemas and tree automata for unranked trees. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 73(4):550--583, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. M. Murata, D. Lee, M. Mani, and K. Kawaguchi. Taxonomy of XML schema languages using formal language theory. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 5(4):660--704, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Y. Papakonstantinou and V. Vianu. DTD inference for views of XML data. In International Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pages 35--46, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. A. Sahuguet. Everything you ever wanted to know about DTDs, but were afraid to ask. In International Workshop on the Web and Databases (WebDB), pages 69--74, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. H. Seidl. Deciding equivalence of finite tree automata. Siam Journal on Computing, 19(3):424--437, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Simplifying XML schema: single-type approximations of regular tree languages

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              PODS '10: Proceedings of the twenty-ninth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
              June 2010
              350 pages
              ISBN:9781450300339
              DOI:10.1145/1807085

              Copyright © 2010 ACM

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 6 June 2010

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              Overall Acceptance Rate476of1,835submissions,26%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!