Abstract
In this paper we take a first step towards characterizing active databases. Declarative characterization of active databases allows additional flexibility in studying the effects of different priority criteria between fireable rules, different actions and event definitions, and also to make claims about effects of transaction and prove them without actually executing them. Our characterization is related but different from similar attempts by Zaniolo in terms of making a clear distinction between actual and hypothetical execution of actions and allowing non-determinism. We use the ‘choice’ construct [SZ90] to characterize the non-determinism that arises when several rules can fire at the same time and the preference between them is not specified. We show through examples how our language allows us to express features of different active database systems.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
C. Baral. Reasoning about Actions: Non-deterministic effects, Constraints and Qualification. In Proc. of IJGAI 95, pages 2017–2023, 1995.
C. Baral and M. Gelfond. Reasoning about effects of concurrent actions. Journal of Logic Programming (to appear), 1996.
C. Baral, M. Gelfond, and A. Provetti. Representing Actions: Laws, Observations and Hypothesis. Journal of Logic Programming (to appear), 1996.
A. Bonner and M. Kifer. Transaction logic programming. In D. S. Warren, editor, Logic Programming: Proc. of the 10th International Conf., pages 257–279, 1993.
S. Ceri, P. Fraternali, S. Paraboschi, and L. Branca. Active rule management in Chimera. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 151–176. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
U. Dayal, A. Buchmann, and S. Chakravarthy. The HiPAC Project. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 177–206. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
P. Fraternali, D. Montesi, and L. Tanca. Active database semantics. In Proc. of the Fifth Australasian Database Conference, 1994.
N. Gehani and H. Jagadish. Active database facilities in Ode. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 207–232. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
E. Hanson. The Ariel Project. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 63–86. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
G. Kartha and V. Lifschitz. Actions with indirect effects: Preliminary report. In KR 94, pages 341–350, 1994.
Y. Lesperance, H. Levesque, F. Lin, D. Marcu, R. Reiter, and R. Scherl. A logical approach to high level robot programming — a progress report. In Working notes of the 1994 AAAI fall symposium on Control of the Physical World by Intelligent Systems (to appear), New Orleans, LA, November 1994.
F. Lin and R. Reiter. State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):655–678, October 1994.
G. Mendez, J Llopis, J. Lobo, and C. Baral. Temporal logic and reasoning about actions. In Common Sense 96, 1996.
S. Manchanda and D. S. Warren. A logic-based language for database updates. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 363–394. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.
S. Potamianos and M. Stonebraker. The POSTGRESS rule system. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 43–62. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
R. Reiter. On specifying database updates. Journal of Logic Programming, 19, 20:1–39, 1994.
E. Simon and J. Kiernan. The A-RDL system. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 111–150. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
P. Sistla and O. Wolfson. Temporal conditions and integrity constraint checking in active database systems. In Proceedings of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, San Jose, CA, 1995. ACM Press.
D. Sacca and C. Zaniolo. Stable models and non-determinism in logic programs with negation. In Proceedings of PODS 1990, pages 205–217, 1990.
J. Widom and S Ceri, editors. Active Database Systems — Triggers and Rules for advanced database processing. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
J. Widom. A denotational semantics for starburst production rule language. SIGMOD Record, 21(3):4–9, 1992.
J. Widom. The Starburst rule system. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 87–110. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.
C. Zaniolo. A unified semantics for active and deductive databases. In Proceedings of 1st international workshop on rules in database systems, pages 271–287. Springer-Verlag, 1993.
C. Zaniolo. Active database rules with transaction-conscious stable models semantics. In Proceedings of DOOD 1996, pages 55–72, 1996.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Baral, C., Lobo, J. (1996). Formal characterization of active databases. In: Pedreschi, D., Zaniolo, C. (eds) Logic in Databases. LID 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1154. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0031741
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0031741
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61814-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-70683-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive