Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T01:51:38.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Active integrity constraints and revision programming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2010

LUCIANO CAROPRESE  and
MIROSŁAW TRUSZCZYŃSKI
LUCIANO CAROPRESE
Affiliation:
Università della Calabria, 87030 Rende, Italy (e-mail: [email protected], [email protected])
MIROSŁAW TRUSZCZYŃSKI
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506, USA (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study active integrity constraints and revision programming, two formalisms designed to describe integrity constraints on databases and to specify policies on preferred ways to enforce them. Unlike other more commonly accepted approaches, these two formalisms attempt to provide a declarative solution to the problem. However, the original semantics of founded repairs for active integrity constraints and justified revisions for revision programs differ. Our main goal is to establish a comprehensive framework of semantics for active integrity constraints, to find a parallel framework for revision programs, and to relate the two. By doing so, we demonstrate that the two formalisms proposed independently of each other and based on different intuitions when viewed within a broader semantic framework turn out to be notational variants of each other. That lends support to the adequacy of the semantics we develop for each of the formalisms as the foundation for a declarative approach to the problem of database update and repair. In the paper, we also study computational properties of the semantics we consider and establish results concerned with the concept of the minimality of change and the invariance under the shifting transformation.

Keywords

inconsistent databasesactive integrity constraintsrevision programming
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , November 2011 , pp. 905 - 952
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. E. and Chomicki, J. 1999. Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems – PODS 1999. ACM Press, New York, NY, 68–79.Google Scholar
Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. E. and Chomicki, J. 2003. Answer sets for consistent query answering in inconsistent databases. TPLP 3, 4–5, 393–424.Google Scholar
Bravo, L. and Bertossi, L. 2007. Semantically correct query answers in the presence of null values, Current Trends in Database Technology – EDBT 2006, EDBT 2006 Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4254. Springer. Heidelberg, Germany, 336–357.Google Scholar
Caroprese, L., Greco, S., Sirangelo, C., and Zumpano, E. 2006. Declarative semantics of production rules for integrity maintenance. In Proceedings of 22th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP-2006). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4079. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 26–40.Google Scholar
Caroprese, L. and Truszczyński, M. 2008a. Declarative semantics for active integrity constraints. In Proceedings of 24th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP-2008). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5366. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 269–283.Google Scholar
Caroprese, L. and Truszczyński, M. 2008b. Declarative semantics for revision programming and connections to active integrity constraints. In Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA-2008). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5293. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 100–112.Google Scholar
Chakravarthy, U. S., Grant, J. and Minker, J. 1990. Logic-based approach to semantic query optimization. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 15, 2, 162–207.Google Scholar
Chomicki, J. 2007. Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Database Theory – ICDT 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4353. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 1–17.Google Scholar
Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15, 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, G., Greco, S. and Zumpano, E. 2003. A logical framework for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15, 6, 1389–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagadish, H. V., Mendelzon, A. O. and Mumick, I. S. 1999. Managing conflicts between rules. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 58, 1, 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A. O. 1991. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-1991), Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 387–394.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Woo, T. 1992. Answer sets in general nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-1992). Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 603–614.Google Scholar
Lopatenko, A. and Bertossi, L. 2006. Consistent query answering by minimal-size repairs. Database and Expert Systems Applications, International Workshop on 0, 558–562.Google Scholar
Marek, W., Pivkina, I. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Revision programming = logic programming + integrity constraints. In Proceedings of 12th International Workshop on Computer Science Logic (CSL-1998). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1584. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 73–89.Google Scholar
Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. 1991. Autoepistemic logic. Journal of the ACM 38, 588–619.Google Scholar
Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. 1994. Revision specifications by means of programs. In Proceedings of European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA-1994). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 838. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 122–136.Google Scholar
Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. 1998. Revision programming. Theoretical Computer Science 190, 241–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marileo, M. C. and Bertossi, L. E. 2007. The consistency extractor system: Querying inconsistent databases using answer set programs. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management – SUM 2007, Prade, H. and Subrahmanian, V. S., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4772. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 74–88.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. 1969. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Machine Intelligence 4, Meltzer, B. and Michie, D., Eds. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, UK, 463–502.Google Scholar
Pivkina, I. 2001. Revision Programming: A Knowledge Representation Formalism. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Widom, J. and Ceri, S. 1996. Conclusions and future directions. In Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules For Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 293–302.Google Scholar
Winslett, M. 1990. Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar