Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Specifying Active Rules for Database Maintenance

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Transactions and Database Dynamics (FoMLaDO 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 1773))

Abstract

In this article we extend previous work on the development of logical foundations for the specification of the dynamics of databases. In particular, we deal with two problems. Firstly, the derivation of active rules that maintain the consistency of the database by triggering repairing actions. Secondly, we deal with the correct integration of the specification of the derived rules into the original specification of the database dynamics. In particular, we show that the expected results are achieved. For instance, the derived axiomatization includes, at the object level, the specification that repairing action executions must be enforced whenever necessary.

This research has been partially financed by FONDECYT (Grants 1990089 and 1980945), and ECOS/CONICYT (Grant C97E05).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Arenas and L. Bertossi. Hypothetical Temporal Queries in Databases. In A. Borgida, V. Chaudhuri, and M. Staudt, editors, Proc. “ACM SIGMOD/PODS 5th Int. Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (KRDB’98): Innovative Application Programming and Query Interfaces, pages 4.1–4.8, 1998. http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-10/.

  2. M. Arenas and L. Bertossi. The Dynamics of Database Views. In B. Freitag, H. Decker, M. Kifer, and A. Voronkov, editors, Transactions and Change in Logic Databases, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1472, pages 197–226, Springer-Verlag, 1998.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. L. Bertossi, M. Arenas, and C. Ferretti. SCDBR: An Automated Reasoner for Specifications of Database Updates. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 10(3):253–280, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. L. Bertossi, J. Pinto, and R. Valdivia. Specifying Database Transactions and Active Rules in the Situation Calculus. In Logical Foundations for Cognitive Agents. Contributions in Honor of Ray Reiter, pages 41–56, Springer, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving Production Rules for Constraint Maintenance. In D. McLeod, R. Sacks-Davis, and H.-J. Schek, editors, Proc. of the 16th Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB’90, Brisbane, Australia, August 13–16, 1990, pages 566–577, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Chomicki. Efficient Checking of Temporal Integrity Constraints Using Bounded History Encoding. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 20(2):149–186, June 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. J. Chomicki and G. Saake, editors. Logics for Databases and Information Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. T. Chou and M. Winslett. A Model-Based Belief Revision System. J. Automated Reasoning, 12:157–208, 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. K. L. Clark. Negation as Failure. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors, Logic and Databases, pages 293–322, Plenum Press, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Van Gelder and R. Topor. Safety and Correct Translation of Relational Calculus Formulas. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS’87, San Diego, CA, pages 313–327, ACM Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. Gertz. An Extensible Framework for Repairing Constraint Violations. In S. Conrad, H.-J. Klein, and K.-D. Schewe, editors, Integrity in Databases — Proc. of the 7th Int. Workshop on Foundations of Models and Languages for Data and Object, Schloss Dagstuhl, Sept. 16–20, 1996, Preprint No. 4, pages 41–56, Institut für Technische Informationssysteme, Universität Magdeburg, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. Gertz. Diagnosis and Repair of Constraint Violations in Database Systems, Dissertationen zu Datenbanken und Informationssystemen, Vol. 19. infix-Verlag, Sankt Augustin, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  13. F. Lin. Embracing Causality in Specifying the Indirect Effects of Actions. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, pages 1985–1991, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F. Lin and R. Reiter. State Constraints Revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation. Special Issue on Actions and Processes, 4(5):655–678, 1994.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. F. Lin and R. Reiter. How to Progress a Database. Artificial Intelligence, 92(1–2):131–167, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. J. McCarthy. Circumscription a form of Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:27–39, 1980.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. J. McCarthy and P. Hayes. Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence, Vol. 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  18. S. McIlraith. Representing Actions and State Constraints in Model-Based Diagnosis. In Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-97), pages 43–49, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. Miller and M. Shanahan. Narratives in the Situation Calculus. The Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):513–530, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. J. Minker. Logic and Databases. Past, Present and Future. AI Magazine, pages 21–47, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. Pinto. Causality, Indirect Effects and Triggers (Preliminary Report). In Seventh International Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, Trento, Italy, 1998. URL=http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/nmr98.html.

  22. J. Pinto. Occurrences and Narratives as Constraints in the Branching Structure of the Situation Calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8:777–808, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. J. Pinto. Compiling Ramification Constraints into Effect Axioms. Computational Intelligence, 13(3), 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. Pinto and R. Reiter. Adding a Time Line to the Situation Calculus. In Working Notes: The Second Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, Austin, Texas, USA, pages 172–177, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  25. R. Reiter. The Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: a Simple Solution (sometimes) and a Completeness Result for Goal Regression. In V. Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 359–380, Academic Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. Reiter. On Specifying Database Updates. Journal of Logic Programming, 25(1):53–91, 1995.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. K.-D. Schewe and B. Thalheim. Limitations of the Rule Triggering Systems for Integrity Maintenance in the Context of Transition Specifications. Acta Cybernetica, 13:277–304, 1998.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. M. Thielscher. Ramification and Causality. Artificial Intelligence, 89:317–364, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. J. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, Vol. I. Computer Science Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. Widom and S. Ceri. Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  31. C. Zaniolo, S. Ceri, Ch. Faloutsos, R. T. Snodgrass, V.S. Subrahmanian, and R. Zicari. Advanced Database Systems. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación Escuela de Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla 306, Santiago, Chile

    Leopoldo Bertossi & Javier Pinto

Authors
  1. Leopoldo Bertossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javier Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Technical and Business Information Systems, University of Magdeburg, P.O. Box 4120, 39016, Magdeburg, Germany

    Gunter Saake

  2. UBS AG, Flurstrasse 62, 8098, Zürich, Switzerland

    Kerstin Schwarz

  3. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Zürich Institute of Information Systems, ETH Zentrum, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland

    Can Türker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bertossi, L., Pinto, J. (2000). Specifying Active Rules for Database Maintenance. In: Saake, G., Schwarz, K., Türker, C. (eds) Transactions and Database Dynamics. FoMLaDO 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1773. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46466-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46466-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67201-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46466-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation