A DBMS query language in natural Chinese language form.

by Lam Chin-keung.Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1995.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-135 (2nd gp.)).ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --- p.IABSTRACT --- p.IITABLE OF CONTENTS --- p.IIILIST OF FIGURES --- p.VILIST OF TABLES --- p.VIIIChapter CHAPTER 1 --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1Chapter 1.1 --- Motivations --- p.1Chapter 1.2 --- Objectives --- p.3Chapter 1.3 --- More to go --- p.3Chapter 1.4 --- Chapter Summary --- p.4Chapter CHAPTER 2 --- RELATED WORK --- p.6Chapter 2.1 --- Chinese Related Work --- p.6Chapter 2.1.1 --- Chinese Natural Language --- p.6Chapter 2.1.2 --- Chinesized Query Language From English --- p.7Chapter 2.2 --- High Level Database Query Language --- p.8Chapter 2.2.1 --- Relational Algebra vs Relational Calculus --- p.9Chapter 2.2.2 --- Procedural vs Declarative --- p.10Chapter 2.2.3 --- Natural Language (NL) vs Restricted Natural Language (RNL) --- p.11Chapter 2.3 --- Database Query Interface --- p.13Chapter 2.3.1 --- Linear Textual Interface --- p.13Chapter 2.3.2 --- Form-based Interface --- p.14Chapter 2.3.3 --- Graphical Interface --- p.14Chapter 2.4 --- Remarks --- p.14Chapter CHAPTER 3 --- DESIGN PRINCIPLES --- p.16Chapter 3.1 --- Underlying Data Model of the new language --- p.16Chapter 3.2 --- Problems Under Attack --- p.17Chapter 3.2.1 --- Naturalness --- p.17Chapter 3.2.2 --- Procedural vs Declarative --- p.19Chapter 3.2.3 --- Supports of Chinese Characters --- p.21Chapter 3.3 --- Design Principles --- p.22Chapter 3.4 --- Chapter Summary --- p.26Chapter CHAPTER 4 --- LANGUAGE DEFINITION --- p.28Chapter 4.1 --- Language Overvew --- p.28Chapter 4.2 --- The Data Manipulation Language --- p.29Chapter 4.2.1 --- Relational Operators --- p.30Chapter 4.2.2 --- Rail-Track Diagram of Chiql --- p.32Chapter 4.2.3 --- The 11-template --- p.33Chapter 4.2.4 --- Chiql Examples --- p.37Chapter 4.2.5 --- Common Language Constructs --- p.39Chapter 4.2.6 --- ONE issue about GROUP BY and RESTRICTION --- p.41Chapter 4.3 --- Other Language Features --- p.42Chapter 4.3.1 --- Aggregate Functions --- p.43Chapter 4.3.2 --- Attribute Alias --- p.44Chapter 4.3.3 --- Conditions in Chinese --- p.45Chapter 4.3.4 --- Unquantifed Predicates --- p.45Chapter 4.3.5 --- sorting --- p.47Chapter 4.4 --- Treatment of Quantified Predicates --- p.48Chapter 4.5 --- The Data Definition Language --- p.52Chapter 4.5.1 --- Create Table --- p.52Chapter 4.5.2 --- Drop Table --- p.54Chapter 4.5.3 --- Alter Table --- p.54Chapter 4.5.4 --- Insert Row --- p.56Chapter 4.5.5 --- Delete Row --- p.56Chapter 4.5.6 --- Update Row --- p.57Chapter 4.5.7 --- Remarks on DDL --- p.58Chapter 4.6 --- Chapter Summary --- p.59Chapter CHAPTER 5 --- END-USER INTERFACE --- p.61Chapter 5.1 --- EUI Overview --- p.61Chapter 5.2 --- Design Principles --- p.62Chapter 5.2.1 --- Language Independent Aspects --- p.62Chapter 5.2.2 --- Language Dependent Aspects --- p.64Chapter 5.3 --- Complex Condition Handling --- p.68Chapter 5.4 --- Input Sequences of the EUI --- p.71Chapter 5.5 --- Query Formulation： An Example --- p.73Chapter 5.6 --- Chapter Summary --- p.85Chapter CHAPTER 6 --- CHIQL TO SQL TRANSLATIONS --- p.86Chapter 6.1 --- Related Work --- p.87Chapter 6.2 --- Translation Overview --- p.87Chapter 6.2.1 --- "Pass One:Mapping( Input = Chiql, Output = multi-statement SQL)" --- p.89Chapter 6.2.2 --- "Pass Two:Nesting(Input = multi-statement SQL, Output = single statement SQL)" --- p.92Chapter 6.2.3 --- Technical Difficulties in Chiql/SQL Translation --- p.99Chapter 6.3 --- Chapter Summary --- p.106Chapter CHAPTER 7 --- EVALUATION --- p.108Chapter 7.1 --- Expressiveness Test --- p.108Chapter 7.1.1 --- Results --- p.109Chapter 7.1.2 --- Implications --- p.111Chapter 7.2 --- Usability Evaluation --- p.111Chapter 7.2.1 --- Evaluation Methodology --- p.112Chapter 7.2.2 --- Result:Completion Time --- p.113Chapter 7.2.3 --- Result: Additional Help --- p.116Chapter 7.2.4 --- Result： Query Error --- p.116Chapter 7.2.5 --- Result： Overall Score --- p.118Chapter 7.2.6 --- User Comments --- p.120Chapter 7.3 --- Chapter Summary --- p.120Chapter CHAPTER 8 --- CONCLUSIONS --- p.122Chapter 8.1 --- Thesis Conclusions --- p.122Chapter 8.2 --- Future Work --- p.124REFERENCESAPPENDI

Object-oriented querying of existing relational databases

In this paper, we present algorithms which allow an object-oriented querying of existing relational databases. Our goal is to provide an improved query interface for relational systems with better query facilities than SQL. This seems to be very important since, in real world applications, relational systems are most commonly used and their dominance will remain in the near future. To overcome the drawbacks of relational systems, especially the poor query facilities of SQL, we propose a schema transformation and a query translation algorithm. The schema transformation algorithm uses additional semantic information to enhance the relational schema and transform it into a corresponding object-oriented schema. If the additional semantic information can be deducted from an underlying entity-relationship design schema, the schema transformation may be done fully automatically. To query the created object-oriented schema, we use the Structured Object Query Language (SOQL) which provides declarative query facilities on objects. SOQL queries using the created object-oriented schema are much shorter, easier to write and understand and more intuitive than corresponding S Q L queries leading to an enhanced usability and an improved querying of the database. The query translation algorithm automatically translates SOQL queries into equivalent SQL queries for the original relational schema

Comparative Analysis of Five XML Query Languages

XML is becoming the most relevant new standard for data representation and exchange on the WWW. Novel languages for extracting and restructuring the XML content have been proposed, some in the tradition of database query languages (i.e. SQL, OQL), others more closely inspired by XML. No standard for XML query language has yet been decided, but the discussion is ongoing within the World Wide Web Consortium and within many academic institutions and Internet-related major companies. We present a comparison of five, representative query languages for XML, highlighting their common features and differences.Comment: TeX v3.1415, 17 pages, 6 figures, to be published in ACM Sigmod Record, March 200