Semantic Data Control

Semantic Data Control
Dr.JakeFinlay Profile Pic
Dr.JakeFinlay,Germany,Teacher
Published Date:22-07-2017
Your Website URL(Optional)
Comment
Chapter 4: Semantic Data Control • View management • Security control • Integrity control Acknowledgements: I am indebted to Arturas Mazeika for providing me his slides of the last year course. DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 1Semantic Data Control • Semantic data control typically includes view management, security control, and semantic integrity control. • Informally, these functions must ensure that authorized users perform correct operations on the database, contributing to the maintenance of database integrity. • In RDBMS semantic data control can be achieved in a uniform way – views, security constraints, and semantic integrity constraints can be defined as rules that the system automatically enforces DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 2View Management • Views enable full logical data independence • Views are virtual relations that are defined as the result of a query on base relations • Views are typically not materialized – Can be considered a dynamic window that reflects all relevant updates to the database • Views are very useful for ensuring data security in a simple way – By selecting a subset of the database, views hide some data – Users cannot see the hidden data DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 3View Management in Centralized Databases • A view is a relation that is derived from a base relation via a query. • It can involve selection, projection, aggregate functions, etc. • Example: The view of system analysts derived from relation EMP CREATE VIEW SYSAN(ENO,ENAME) AS SELECT ENO,ENAME FROM EMP WHERE TITLE="Syst. Anal." DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 4View Management in Centralized Databases . . . • Queries expressed on views are translated into queries expressed on base relations • Example: “Find the names of all the system analysts with their project number and responsibility?” – Involves the view SYSAN and the relation ASG(ENO,PNO,RESP,DUR) SELECT ENAME, PNO, RESP FROM SYSAN, ASG WHERE SYSN.ENO = ASG.ENO is translated into SELECT ENAME,PNO,RESP FROM EMP, ASG WHERE EMP.ENO = ASG.ENO AND TITLE = "Syst. Anal." • Automatic query modification is required, i.e., ANDing query qualification with view qualification DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 5View Management in Centralized Databases . . . • All views can be queried as base relations, but not all view can be updated as such – Updates through views can be handled automatically only if they can be propagated correctly to the base relations – We classify views as updatable or not-updatable • Updatable view: The updates to the view can be propagated to the base relations without ambiguity. CREATE VIEW SYSAN(ENO,ENAME) AS SELECT ENO,ENAME FROM EMP WHERE TITLE="Syst. Anal." – e.g, insertion of tuple (201,Smith) can be mapped into the insertion of a new employee (201, Smith, “Syst. Anal.”) – If attributes other than TITLE were hidden by the view, they would be assigned the value null DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 6View Management in Centralized Databases . . . • Non-updatable view: The updates to the view cannot be propagated to the base relations without ambiguity. CREATE VIEW EG(ENAME,RESP) AS SELECT ENAME,RESP FROM EMP, ASG WHERE EMP.ENO=ASG.ENO – e.g, deletion of (Smith, ”Syst. Anal.”) is ambiguous, i.e., since deletion of “Smith” in EMP and deletion of “Syst. Anal.” in ASG are both meaningful, but the system cannot decide. • Current systems are very restrictive about supportin gupdates through views – Views can be updated only if they are derived from a single relation by selection and projection – However, it is theoretically possible to automatically support updates of a larger class of views, e.g., joins DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 7View Management in Distributed Databases • Definition of views in DDBMS is similar as in centralized DBMS – However, a view in a DDBMS may be derived from fragmented relations stored at different sites • Views are conceptually the same as the base relations, therefore we store them in the (possibly) distributed directory/catalogue – Thus, views might be centralized at one site, partially replicated, fully replicated – Queries on views are translated into queries on base relations, yielding distributed queries due to possible fragmentation of data • Views derived from distributed relations may be costly to evaluate – Optimizations are important, e.g., snapshots – A snapshot is a static view ∗ does not reflect the updates to the base relations ∗ managed as temporary relations: the only access path is sequential scan ∗ typically used when selectivity is small (no indices can be used efficiently) ∗ is subject to periodic recalculation DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 8Data Security • Data security protects data against unauthorized acces and has two aspects: – Data protection – Authorization control DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 9Data Protection • Data protection prevents unauthorized users from understanding the physical content of data. • Well established standards exist – Data encryption standard – Public-key encryption schemes DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 10Authorization Control • Authorization control must guarantee that only authorized users perform operations they are allowed to perform on the database. • Three actors are involved in authorization – users, who trigger the execution of application programms – operations, which are embedded in applications programs – database objects, on which the operations are performed • Authorization control can be viewed as a triple (user, operation type, object) which specifies that the user has the right to perform an operation of operation type on an object. • Authentication of (groups of) users is typically done by username and password • Authorization control in (D)DBMS is more complicated as in operating systems – In a file system: data objects are files – In a DBMS: Data objects are views, (fragments of) relations, tuples, attributes DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 11Authorization Control . . . • Grand and revoke statements are used to authorize triplets (user, operation, data object) – GRANT operations ON object TO users – REVOKE operations ON object TO users • Typically, the creator of objects gets all permissions – Might even have the permission to GRANT permissions – This requires a recursive revoke process • Privileges are stored in the directory/catalogue, conceptually as a matrix EMP ENAME ASG Casey UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE Jones SELECT SELECT SELECT WHERE RESP= “Manager” Smith NONE SELECT NONE • Different materializations of the matrix are possible (by row, by columns, by element), allowing for different optimizations – e.g., by row makes the enforcement of authorization efficient, since all rights of a user are in a single tuple DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 12 6Distributed Authorization Control • Additional problems of authorization control in a distributed environment stem from the fact that objects and subjects are distributed: – remote user authentication – managmenet of distributed authorization rules – handling of views and of user groups • Remote user authentication is necessary since any site of a DDBMS may accept programs initiated and authorized at remote sites • Two solutions are possible: – (username, password) is replicated at all sites and are communicated between the sites, whenever the relations at remote sites are accessed ∗ beneficial if the users move from a site to a site – All sites of the DDBMS identify and authenticate themselves similarly as users do ∗ intersite communication is protected by the use of the site password; ∗ (username, password) is authorized by application at the start of the session; ∗ no remote user authentication is required for accessing remote relations once the start site has been authenticated ∗ beneficial if users are static DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 13Semantic Integrity Constraints • A database is said to be consistent if it satisfies a set of constraints, called semantic integrity constraints • Maintain a database consistent by enforcing a set of constraints is a difficult problem • Semantic integrity control evolved from procedural methods (in which the controls were embedded in application programs) to declarative methods – avoid data dependency problem, code redundancy, and poor performance of the procedural methods • Two main types of constraints can be distinguished: – Structural constraints: basic semantic properties inherent to a data model e.g., unique key constraint in relational model – Behavioral constraints: regulate application behavior e.g., dependencies (functional, inclusion) in the relational model • A semantic integrity control system has 2 components: – Integrity constraint specification – Integrity constraint enforcement DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 14Semantic Integrity Constraint Specification • Integrity constraints specification – In RDBMS, integrity constraints are defined as assertions, i.e., expression in tuple relational calculus – Variables are either universally (∀) or existentially (∃) quantified – Declarative method – Easy to define constraints – Can be seen as a query qualification which is either true or false – Definition of database consistency clear – 3 types of integrity constraints/assertions are distinguished: ∗ predefined ∗ precompiled ∗ general constraints • In the following examples we use the following relations: EMP(ENO, ENAME, TITLE) PROJ(PNO, PNAME, BUDGET) ASG(ENO, PNO, RESP, DUR) DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 15Semantic Integrity Constraint Specification . . . • Predefined constraints are based on simple keywords and specify the more common contraints of the relational model • Not-null attribute: – e.g., Employee number in EMP cannot be null ENO NOT NULL IN EMP • Unique key: – e.g., the pair (ENO,PNO) is the unique key in ASG (ENO, PNO) UNIQUE IN ASG • Foreign key: – e.g., PNO in ASG is a foreign key matching the primary key PNO in PROJ PNO IN ASG REFERENCES PNO IN PROJ • Functional dependency: – e.g., employee number functionally determines the employee name ENO IN EMP DETERMINES ENAME DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 16Semantic Integrity Constraint Specification . . . • Precompiled constraints express preconditions that must be satisfied by all tuples in a relation for a given update type • General form: CHECK ON relation WHEN update type qualification • Domain constraint, e.g., constrain the budget: CHECK ON PROJ(BUDGET500000 AND BUDGET≤1000000) • Domain constraint on deletion, e.g., only tuples with budget 0 can be deleted: CHECK ON PROJ WHEN DELETE (BUDGET = 0) • Transition constraint, e.g., a budget can only increase: CHECK ON PROJ (NEW.BUDGET OLD.BUDGET AND NEW.PNO = OLD.PNO) – OLD and NEW are implicitly defined variables to identify the tuples that are subject to update DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 17Semantic Integrity Constraint Specification . . . • General constraints may involve more than one relation • General form: CHECK ON variable:relation (qualification) • Functional dependency: CHECK ON e1:EMP, e2:EMP (e1.ENAME = e2.ENAME IF e1.ENO = e2.ENO) • Constraint with aggregate function: e.g., The total duration for all employees in the CAD project is less than 100 CHECK ON g:ASG, j:PROJ ( SUM(g.DUR WHERE g.PNO=j.PNO) 100 IF j.PNAME="CAD/CAM" ) DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 18Semantic Integrity Constraints Enforcement • Enforcing semantic integrity constraints consists of rejecting update programs that violate some integrity constraints • Thereby, the major problem is to find efficient algorithms • Two methods to enforce integrity constraints: – Detection: 1. Execute updateu :D →D u ′ 2. IfD is inconsistent then compensateD →D or undoD →D u u u u ∗ Also called posttest ∗ May be costly if undo is very large – Prevention: Executeu :D →D only ifD will be consistent u u ∗ Also called pretest ∗ Generally more efficient ∗ Query modification algorithm by Stonebraker (1975) is a preventive method that is particularly efficient in enforcing domain constraints. · Add the assertion qualification (constraint) to the update query and check it immediately for each tuple DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 19Semantic Integrity Constraints Enforcement . . . • Example: Consider a query for increasing the budget of CAD/CAM projects by 10%: UPDATE PROJ SET BUDGET = BUDGET 1.1 WHERE PNAME = ‘‘CAD/CAM’’ and the domain constraint CHECK ON PROJ (BUDGET = 50K AND BUDGET = 100K) The query modification algorithm transforms the query into: UPDATE PROJ SET BUDGET = BUDGET 1.1 WHERE PNAME = ‘‘CAD/CAM’’ AND NEW.BUDGET = 50K AND NEW.BUDGET = 100K DDB 2008/09 J. Gamper Page 20