Abstract
There has been a significant amount of interest in recent years on how to reason about inconsistent knowledge bases. However, with the exception of three papers by Lozinskii, Hunter and Konieczny and by Grant and Hunter, there has been almost no work on characterizing the degree of dirtiness of a database. One can conceive of many reasonable ways of characterizing how dirty a database is. Rather than choose one of many possible measures, we present a set of axioms that any dirtiness measure must satisfy. We then present several plausible candidate dirtiness measures from the literature (including those of Hunter-Konieczny and Grant-Hunter) and identify which of these satisfy our axioms and which do not. Moreover, we define a new dirtiness measure which satisfies all of our axioms.
Funded in part by grant N6133906C0149, ARO grant DAAD190310202, AFOSR grants FA95500610405 and FA95500510298, and NSF grant 0540216.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Lozinskii, E.L.: Resolving contradictions: A plausible semantics for inconsistent systems. J.of Automated Reasoning 12(1), 1–31 (1994)
Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Approaches to measuring inconsistent information. In: InconsistencyTolerance, pp. 191–236 (2005)
Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 159–184 (2006)
Ullman, J.: Principles of Data Base and Knowledge Base Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)
Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., Subrahmanian, V.: Combining knowledge bases consistingof first order theories. Computational Intelligence (1992)
Bosc, P., Dubois, D., Pivert, O., Prade, H., de Calmes, M.: Fuzzy summarization of data usingfuzzy cardinalities. In: International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems, pp. 1553–1559 (2002)
da Costa, N.: On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of FormalLogic 15(4), 497–510 (1974)
Belnap, N.: A useful four valued logic. In: Epstein, G., Dunn, M. (eds.) Modern Uses of Many Valued Logic, pp. 8–37 (1977)
Grant, J.: Classifications for inconsistent theories. Notre Dame Journal of FormalLogic 19(3), 435–444 (1978)
Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence (1980)
Touretzky, D.: The mathematics of inheritance systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1986)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)
Jermyn, P., Dixon, M., Read, B.J.: Preparing clean views of data for data mining. In: ERCIM Workshop on Database Research, pp. 1–15 (1999)
Schallehn, E., Sattler, K.: Using Similarity-based Operations for Resolving Data-level Conflicts. In: James, A., Younas, M., Lings, B. (eds.) BNCOD 2003, vol. 2712, pp. 172–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In: ICDT, pp. 1–17 (2007)
Bohannon, P., Fan, W., Flaster, M., Rastogi, R.: A cost-based model and effective heuristicfor repairing constraints by value modification. In: SIGMOD, pp. 143–154 (2005)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Martinez, M.V., Pugliese, A., Simari, G.I., Subrahmanian, V.S., Prade, H. (2007). How Dirty Is Your Relational Database? An Axiomatic Approach. In: Mellouli, K. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4724. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75255-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75256-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)