Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SCDBR: An Automated Reasoner for Specifications of Database Updates

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we describe SCDBR, a system that is able to reason automatically from specifications of database updates written in the situation calculus, a first–order language originally proposed by John McCarthy for reasoning about actions and change. The specifications handledby the system are written in the formalism proposed by Ray Reiter for solving the frame problem that appears when one expresses the effects on the database predicates of the execution of atomic transactions.SCDBR is written in PROLOG, and can solve several reasoning tasks, among others,it is able to derive the final specification from effect axioms, to answerqueries to virtually updated databases, to check legality of transactions,to prove integrity constraints from the specification, to modify thespecification in order to embed a desired integrity constraint, and to answer historical queries. For some of these tasks SCDBR can call othersystems, like relational database systems, automated theorem provers, andconstraint solvers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abiteboul, S. and Vianu, V. (1989). A Transaction-Based Approach to Relational Database Specification. Journal of the ACM, 36(4), 758–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedrax-Weiss, T. and Bertossi, L. (1995). Underlying Semantics for the Assessment of Reiter's Solution to the Frame Problem. In J. Wainer and A. Carvalho, editors, Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Proc. XII International Conference of the Brazilian AI Society (SBIA'95), LNAI 991. Springer, LNAI 991.

  • Bertossi, L., Arenas, M. and Ferretti, C. (1996). SCDBR: An Automated Reasoner for Database Updates (Extended Abstract). In Proc. XVI International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC'96), Valdivia, Nov. 13–15.

  • Bertossi, L. and Ferretti, J. (1994). SCDBR: A Reasoner for Specifications in the Situation Calculus of Database Updates. In Temporal Logic. Proceedings First International Conference, ICTL '94, Bonn, Germany, July 1994, LNAI 827, pp. 543–545. Springer.

  • Bertossi, L., Pinto, J., Saez, P., Kapur, D. and Subramaniam, M. (!996). Automating Proofs of Integrity Constraints in the Situation Calculus. In Foundations of Intelligent Systems. Proc. Ninth International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS'96), Zakopane, Poland, pp. 212–222. Springer, LNAI 1079.

  • Böhlen, M. (1994). Managing Temporal Knowledge in Deductive Databases. PhD Thesis #10802, ETH, Zürich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, A. and Kifer, M. (1994). An Overview of Transaction Logic, Theoretical Computer Science, 133, 205–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceri, S., Gottlob, G. and Tanca, L. (1990). Logic Programming and Databases. Springer.

  • Chomicki, J. and Toman, D. (1995). Implementing Temporal Integrity Constraints using an Active DBMS, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 7(4), 566–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Codognet, Ph. and Diaz, D. (1996). Compiling Constraints in CLP(FD), Journal of Logic Programming, pp. 185-226.

  • Díaz, D. (1994). CLP(FD) 2.21 User's Manual. INRIA–Rocquencourt, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikes, R. and Nilsson, N. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to application of theorem proving procedures to problem solving. In Readings in Planning.

  • Haas, A. (1987). The Case for Domain-Specific Frame Axioms. In F. Brown, (Ed.), The frame problem in artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop, pp. 343–348, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, S.Y.K. (2996). Implementation and Performance of Transaction Logic in PROLOG. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.

  • Kapur, D. and Zhang, H. (1995). An Overview of Rewrite Rule Laboratory (RRL), J. of Computer and Mathematics with Applications.

  • Kowalski, R. (1979). Logic for Problem Solving. North-Holland.

  • Lésperance, Y., Levesque, H., Lin, F., Marcu, D., Reiter, R. and Scherl, R. (1994). A Logical Approach to High–Level Robot Programming – A Progress Report. Proc. AAAI Fall Symposium of Control of the Physical World by Intelligent Systems, New Orleans, LA.

  • Lin, F. and Reiter, R. (1994a). How to Progress a Database (and Why) I: Logical Foundations. In E. Sandewall J. Doyle and P. Torasso, (Eds.), Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (pp. 425–436). Morgan Kaufmann.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F. and Reiter, R. (1995). How to Progress a Database II: The STRIPS Connection. Proc. IJCAI'95, (pp. 2001–2007).

  • Lin, F. and Reiter, R. (1995). How to Progress a Database. Artificial Intelligence, 92(1–2), pp. 131–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J. W. (1987). Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer Verlag.

  • McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. (1969). Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, (Eds.), Machine Intelligence, volume 4, pp. 463–502, Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCune, W.W. (1994). OTTER 3.0 Reference Manual and Guide. Argonne National Laboratory, Technical Report ANL-94/6.

  • Pednault, E. (1989). ADL: Exploring the Middle Ground between STRIPS and the Situation Calculus. In H. Levesque R. Brachman and R. Reiter, (Eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), (pp. 324–332), San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, J. (1994). Temporal Reasoning in the Situational Calculus, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto.

  • Reiter, R. (1987). Nonmonotonic Reasoning. In Annual Reviews in Computer Science, 2, pp. 147–186.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Reiter, R. (1992). On Specifying Database Updates. Technical Report KRR-TR-92-3, University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science, Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. (1993). Proving Properties of States in the Situation Calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 64(2), 337–351.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Saez, P. (In preparation.). Automated Proofs of Database Integrity Constraints, PhD thesis, Catholic University of Chile, School of Engineering, Department of Computer Science.

  • Sandewall, E. (1994). Features and Fluents I. A Systematic Approach to the Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems. Oxford University Press.

  • Schubert, L. (1990). Monotonic Solution of the Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: an Efficient Method for Worlds with Fully Specified Actions. In H. Kyburg, R. Loui, and G. Carlson, (Eds.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pp. 23–67, Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siu, B. and Bertossi, L. (1996). Answering Historical Queries in Databases using Relevance. Submitted for publication.

  • Siu, B., Bertossi, L. and Arenas, M. (1996). A Semantical Notion of Relevance in Specifications of Database Updates and its Computational Counterpart. Submitted for publication.

  • Siu, B. and Bertossi, L. (1996). Answering Historical Queries in Databases. Technical Report RT-PUC-DCC-2-96, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Escuela de Ingenieria, Departamento de Ciencia de Computacion, Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile. ftp://ing.puc.cl/dcc/techReports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siu, B. and Bertossi, L. (1996). Answering Historical Queries in Databases (Extended Abstract). In Proc. XVI International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC'96), Valdivia, Nov. 13–15.

  • Snodgrass, R. and Ahn, I. (1986). Temporal Databases. IEEE Computer, Sept., 35–42

  • Ullman, J. (1988). Database and Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 1. Computer Science Press.

  • van Gelder, A. and Topor, R. (1987). Safety and Correct Translation of Relational Calculus Formulas. Proc. ACM Symposium on Database Systems (PODS), pp. 313–327.

  • Zakinthinos, A. (1993). Improved Runtime Complexity for Historical Queries with Application to Secure Systems. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto. Term Project for CSC2532.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Escuela de Ingeniería, Casilla 306, Santiago 22, Chile

    Leopoldo Bertossi, Marcelo Arenas & Cristian Ferretti

Authors
  1. Leopoldo Bertossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Arenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristian Ferretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bertossi, L., Arenas, M. & Ferretti, C. SCDBR: An Automated Reasoner for Specifications of Database Updates. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 10, 253–280 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013861118705

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013861118705

Search

Navigation