Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Database Theory

ICDT 1990: ICDT '90 pp 437–451Cite as

Drawing updates from derivations

  • Updates
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 470))

Abstract

We propose a method for satisfying update requests in deductive databases. The setting is a generalization of the view update problem in relational databases. Updates can be drawn from goals and input clauses in derivations that are rooted at the request. An update may be invalidated by negation or integrity constraints. Thus, it may be necessary to try other updates, drawn from the same or other derivations. We show that an SLDNF tree provides for derivations from which a complete set of possible updates for a delete request can be drawn. SLDNF trees are generally not complete for insert requests; rather, more derivations than there are in an SLDNF tree have to be computed for obtaining completeness of updates, in general. Therefore, we define view update trees and show that a complete set of possible view updates for insert requests can be drawn from them. We specify a literal selection strategy that avoids the construction of redundant derivations.

The paper was written at ECRC, Munich, and supported by ESPRIT BRA #3012, COMPULOG

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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. K.R. Apt, J.M. Pugin, Management of Stratified Databases, Tech. Report TR-87-41, Dept. of Comp. Sc., Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  2. S. Abiteboul, Updates, A New Frontier, Proc. ICDT 88, 1–18, Springer, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  3. F. Bry, H. Decker, R. Manthey, A Uniform Approach to Constraint Satisfaction and Constraint Satisfiability in Deductive Databases, Proc. EDBT 88, 488–505, Springer, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  4. A. Bruffaerts, E. Henin, Proof Trees for Negation as Failure: Yet Another Prolog Meta-Interpreter, Proc. 5th ICLP, 343–358, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  5. F. Bry, Intensional Updates: Abduction via Deduction, Proc. 7th ICLP, 561–578, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. L. Cavedon, J.W. Lloyd, A Completeness Theorem For SLDNF-Resolution, J. Logic Programming 7,3:177–191, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  7. U. Dayal, P.A. Bernstein, On the correct translation of update operations on relational views, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 8,3:382–416, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  8. H. Decker, Integrity Enforcement on Deductive Databases, in L. Kerschberg (ed), Expert Database Systems, 381–395, Benjamin/Cummings, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. H. Decker, The Range Form of Deductive Databases and Queries, or: How to Avoid Floundering, Proc. 5th OGAI, Informatik Fachberichte 208, 114–123, Springer, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. Decker, Drawing Updates From Derivations (long version), IR-KB-65, ECRC, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. Decker, Belief Revision in Deductive Databases, ESPRIT BRA #3012 deliverable, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Doyle, A Truth Maintenance System, Artificial Intelligence 12:231–272, 1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. C. Elcan, A Rational Reconstruction of Nonmonotonic Truth Maintenance Systems, Artificial Intelligence 43(2):219–234, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. de Kleer, An assumption-based TMS, Artificial Intelligence 28:127–162, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  15. K. Eshghi, R.A. Kowalski, Abduction compared with Negation as Failure, Proc. 6th ICLP, 234–254, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. L. Furtado, M. A. Casanova, Updating Relational Views, in W. Kim et al (eds), Query processing in Database Systems, 127–142, Springer, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  17. R. Fagin, G.M. Kuper, J.D. Ullman, M.Y. Vardi, Updating Logical Databases, Advances in Computing Research, 3:1–18, JAI Press, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Guessoum, J.W. Lloyd, Updating Knowledge Bases, New Generation Computing 8(1):71–89, OHMSHA and Springer, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  19. A. Guessoum, J.W. Lloyd, Updating Knowledge Bases II, Univ. Bristol, Comp. Sc., TR-90-13, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  20. H. Gallaire, J. Minker, J.M. Nicolas, Logic and Databases: A Deductive Approach, Comp. Surveys 16(2):153–185, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  21. A. Kakas, P. Mancarella, Database Updates through Abduction, to appear in Proc. VLDB 90, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Kakas, P. Mancarella, Knowledge Assimilation and Truth Maintenance through Abduction, Proc. 3rd Int'l Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J.W. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edition, 1987. Springer, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J.W. Lloyd, Directions for Meta-Programming, Proc. 5th FGCS, 609–617, ICOT, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  25. S. Manchanda, Declarative Expression of Deductive Database Updates, Proc. 8th PoDS, 93–100, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. Manthey, F. Bry, SATCHMO: a theorem prover implemented in Prolog, Proc. 9th CADE, 415–434, Springer, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  27. S. Manchanda, D.S. Warren, Towards a Logical Theory of Database View Updates, in J. Minker (ed), Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, 363–394, Morgan, Kaufmann, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J.M. Nicolas, K. Yazdanian, An Outline of BDGEN: A Deductive DBMS, Proc. IFIP 83, 711–717, Elsevier, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  29. L. Naish, Declarative Diagnosis of Missing Answers, Tech. Report 88/9, Dept. of Comp. Sc., Univ. Melbourne, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  30. L.M. Pereira, M. Calejo, J. Aparicio, Refining Knowledge Base Updates, Al Center UNINOVA, Lisbon, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  31. L.M. Pereira, J. Aparicio, Default Reasoning as Abduction, Al Center UNINOVA, Lisbon, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  32. L.M. Pereira, Rational Debugging in Logic Programs, Proc. 3rd ICLP, 203–210, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  33. D.L. Poole, A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 36:27–47, 1988.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. F. Rossi, S. Naqvi, Contributions to the View Update Problem, Proc. 6th ICLP, 398–415, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  35. R. Reiter, A Logic for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13:81–132, 1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. R.M. Smullyan, First Order Logic, Springer, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J.A. Thom, A Declarative Approach to Database Updates, Tech. Report 1/88, Dept. of Comp. Sc., Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  38. A. Tomasci, View Update Annotation in Definite Deductive Databases, Proc. ICDT 88, 338–352, Springer, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  39. L.U. Yalcinalp, L.S. Sterling, An integrated Interpreter for Explaining Prolog's successes and failures, Proc. Workshop on Meta-Programming in Logic Programming, 147–160, Bristol, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Siemens ZFE IS INF 31, Box 83 09 53, D-8000, Munich 83

    Hendrik Decker

Authors
  1. Hendrik Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Serge Abiteboul Paris C. Kanellakis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Decker, H. (1990). Drawing updates from derivations. In: Abiteboul, S., Kanellakis, P.C. (eds) ICDT '90. ICDT 1990. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 470. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53507-1_94

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-53507-1_94

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-53507-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-46682-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation