An Introduction to the Enterprise-Participant (EP) Data Model

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Nov 1, 2014
https://doi.org/10.47164/ijngc.v5i3.74
Download
PDF
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 5, Issue 3, November 2014

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

KEVIN XU
Purdue University
YI SUN
The City College of New York
BHARAT BHARGAVA
Purdue University

Abstract

The relationships among partial computable functions, e.g., the query "If applying a function x to a function y yields a function z ?", are undecidable in general, and therefore we do not have corresponding built-in operators in programming languages or database management systems. Limited to a nite set of nite functions, i.e., nitely many functions with nitely many ordered argument-value pairs, however, the relationships are decidable. The Enterprise-Participant (EP) data model is one that manages data as nite sets of nite functions and that has a set of built-in operators to express the relationships. In this article, we introduce the EP data model. Considering a data model as a recursive language, i.e., its executions always terminate, the EP data model is the most expressive among all contemporary data models including the relational data model and hierarchical data models (e.g., XML), and among all contemporary structured data representations including semi-structured data and graph-based data. Further, it mathematically reaches the limit in database management, i.e., we can use the EP data model to manage arbitrarily computable information. The aim is to consolidate heterogeneous data into a general data structure and to oer more powerful built-in operators for data analysis in cloud computing and big data initiatives.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
KEVIN XU, YI SUN, & BHARAT BHARGAVA. (2014). An Introduction to the Enterprise-Participant (EP) Data Model. International Journal of Next-Generation Computing, 5(3), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.47164/ijngc.v5i3.74
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Bizer, B., Heath, T., Berners-Lee, T. Linked data - the story so far. In Journal on semantic web and information systems, 2009
  2. Boley, H., Paschke, A., Shafiq, O. RuleML 1.0: The Overarching Specification of Web Rules. To appear in the Fourth International Conference of Rule ML, 2010 In The fourth international conference of Rule ML, 2010
  3. Boley, H., Tabet, S., Wagner, G. Design Rationale of RuleML: A Markup Language for Semantic Web Rules. in Proc. SWWS01, Stanford, July/August 2001.
  4. Boncz, P., Grust, T., Keulen, M.V., Manegold, S., Rittinger, J., Teubner, J. MonetDB/XQuery: A Fast XQuery Processor Powered by a Relational Engine. In SIGMOD 2006, June 27-29, 2006, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
  5. Buneman, P., Fernandez, M., Suciu, D. P. Buneman, M. Fernandez, D. Suciu. UnQL: A Query Language and Algebra for Semistructured Data Based on Structural Recursion. The VLDB Journal, 2000. In Chang, F., Dean, J. Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data. in Google Inc., IOSDI 2006.
  6. Feigenbaum, L., Herman, I., Hongsermeier, T., Neumann, E., Stephens, S. The Semantic Web in Action. In Scientific American, 297(6), pp. 90-97, (December 2007) Ferguson, M. Architecting A Big Data Platform for Analystics. In IBM White Paper, Intelligent Business Strategies, October 2012.
  7. Heitmann, B., Hayes, C. Enabling Case-Based Reasoning on the Web of Data. In Workshop Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR 2010), pp. 133 - 140.
  8. Kent, W. Limitations of Record-based Information Models. In ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 1979, Pages 107 - 1 Krzyzanowski, P. Bigtable, a NoSQL massively parallel table. In November 2011, available at: http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/ pxk/417/notes/content/bigtable.html.
  9. Lee, J.K., Sohn, M.M. The eXtensible Rule Markup Language. In Communication of the ACM, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp. 59-64, May 2003.
  10. Ohori, A., Buneman, P., Breazu-Tannen, V. Database Programming in Machiavelli, a polymorphic language with static type inference. In ACM SIGMOD, 1989, pp. 46 - 57.
  11. Trentelman, K. Survey of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Systems. In Defence Science and Technology Organization, Australia, DSTO-TR-2324, July 2009.
  12. Ward NoSQL Databases in the Cloud: MongoDB on AWS. In Amazon Web Services, March 2013.
  13. Xu, K.H. A Notion of Database from the Lambda Calculus. In The 2014 Computability in Europe Conference (CiE 2014), Budapest, Hungary, June 2014 Xu, K.H., Zhang J., Gao S. Approximating Knowledge of Cooking in Higher-order Functions, a Case Study of Froglingo. In Workshop Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning (ICCBR 2010), pp. 219 - 228.
  14. Xu, K.H. Froglingo, A Database Programming Language. In A Talk at Microsoft Research Cambridge, May 2006.
  15. Xu, K.H. A Users Guide to Froglingo, An Alternative to DBMS, Programming Language, File System, and Web Server. In Available at the website: http://www.froglingo.com/FrogUserGuide10.pdf
  16. Xu, K.H. Froglingo, an Monolithic alternative to DBMS, Programming Language, Web Server, and File System. In The Fifth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, 2010.
  17. Xu, K.H. EP Data Model, a Language for Higher-Order Functions. In Manuscript unpublished, March 1999. http://www.froglingo.com/ep99.pdf.
  18. Xu, K. H., Bhargava, B. 1996. An Introduction to Enterprise-Participant Data Model. In The seventh international workshop on database and expert systems applications (September, 1996, Zurich, Switzerland), page 410-417
  19. Owl OWL Web Ontology Language Overview. In W3C Recommendation, 10 February 2004, available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-feature.