Journal of Intelligent Information Systems

, Volume 1, Issue 3–4, pp 293–321 | Cite as

Relaxation as a platform for cooperative answering

  • Terry Gaasterland
  • Parke Godfrey
  • Jack Minker
Article

Abstract

Responses to queries posed by a user of a database do not always contain the information desired. Database answers to a query, although they may be logically correct, can sometimes be misleading. Research in the area of cooperative answering for databases and deductive databases seeks to rectify these problems. We introduce a cooperative method calledrelaxation for expanding deductive database and logic programming queries. The relaxation method expands the scope of a query by relaxing the constraints implicit in the query. This allows the database to return answers related to the original query as well as the literal answers themselves. These additional answers may be of interest to the user. In section 1 we introduce the problem and method. In Section 2 we give some background on the research done in cooperative answering. Section 3 discusses the relaxation method, a potential control strategy, and uses. Section 4 looks at a semantic counterpart to this notion. In Section 5 we explore some of the control and efficiency issues. We enumerate open issues in Section 6, and conclude in Section 7.

Keywords

deductive database logic programming cooperative answering database interface 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aït-Kaci, H. and Nasr, R. (1986). LOGIN: A Logic Programming Language with Built-in Inheritance.Journal of Logic Programming, 3(3), 185–215.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J.F. and Perrault, C.R. (1986). Analyzing Intention in Utterances. In B.J. Grosz, K.S. Jones, and B.L. Weber (Eds.),Readings in Natural Language Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, pp. 441–458.Google Scholar
  3. Baral, C., Kraus, S., and Minker, J. (1990). Communicating between multiple knowledge based systems with different languages.Draft Proc. Int. Working Conf. Cooperative Knowledge Based Systems, (pp. 121–125), University of Keele, England.Google Scholar
  4. Brachman, R.J. (1983). What IS-A Is and Isn't: An Analysis of Taxonomic Links in Semantic Networks.Computer, 16(10), 30–36.Google Scholar
  5. Chakravarthy, U. (1985).Semantic Query Optimization in Deductive Databases. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, P.P.S. (1976). The Entity-Relationship Model: Towards a Unified View of Data.ACM Transactions on Database Systems 1, 1.Google Scholar
  7. Chu, W.W., Chen, Q., and Lee, R. (1990). Cooperative Query Answering via Type Abstraction Hierarchy. Tech. Rep., University of California at Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  8. Cuppens, F., and Demolombe, R. (1988) Cooperative answering: a methodology to provide intellegent access to databases.Proc. Second Int. Conf. Expert Database System, (pp. 333–353).Google Scholar
  9. Cuppens, F., and Demolombe, R. (1989). How to Recognize Interesting Topics to Provide Cooperative Answering.Information Systems, 14, 2, 163–173.Google Scholar
  10. Enderton, H.B. (1972).A Mathematical Introduction to Logic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gaasterland, T., Giuliano, M., Litcher, A., Liu, Y., and Minker, J. (1990a) Using integrity constraints to control search in knowledge base systems. Tech. Rep. UMIACS-TR-90-27, CS-TR-2416, University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  12. Gaasterland, T, Minker, J., and Rajasekar, A. (1990b) Deductive database systems and knowledge base systems.Proceedings of VIA 90. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  13. Gal, A. (1988).Cooperative Responses in Deductive Databases. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  14. Gal, A. and Minker, J. (1985). A natural language database interface that provides cooperative answers.Proc. Second Conf. Artif. Intell. Appl.,Google Scholar
  15. Gal, A. and Minker, J. (1988). Informative and Cooperative Answers in Databases Using Integrity Constraints. In V. Dahl and P. Saint-Dizier (Eds.),Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 277–300.Google Scholar
  16. Gal, A. and Minker, J. (1990) Producing cooperative answers in deductive databases. In P. Saint-Dizier and S. Szpakowics (Eds.),Logic and Logic Grammar for Language Processing, L.S. Horward.Google Scholar
  17. Imielinski, T. (1988). Intelligent Query Answering in Rule Based Systems. In J. Minker (Ed.),Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Washington, DC, Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  18. Janas, J.M. (1981). On the Feasaibility of Informative Answers. In H. Gallaire, J. Minker, and J. Nicolas (Eds.),Advances In Database Theory, Vol. 1, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 397–414.Google Scholar
  19. Kaplan, S. (1982). Cooperative Responses from a Portable Natural Language Query System.Artificial Intelligence, 19(2), 165–187.Google Scholar
  20. Kowalski, R. (1979).Logic for Problem Solving. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  21. Lloyd, J. (1987).Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  22. McCoy, K. (1988). Reasoning on a Highlighted User Model to Respond to Misconceptions.Computational Linguistics, 14, 52–63.Google Scholar
  23. McSkimin, J. (1976).The Use of Semantic Information in Deductive Question-Answering Systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  24. McSkimin, J.R. and Minker, J. (1977). A Predicate Calculus Based Semantic Network for Question-Answering Systems. Tech. Rep., Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  25. McSkimin, J. and Minker, J. (1979). Predicate Calculus Based Semantic Network for Question-Answering Systems. In N. Findler (Ed.),Associative Networks-The Representation and Use of Knowledge in Computers, (pp. 205–238), Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  26. Motro, A. (1986b). SEAVE: A Mechanism for Verifying User Presuppositions in Query Systems.ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4, 4.Google Scholar
  27. Motro, A. (1986a). Extending the relational model to support goal queries.Proc. First. Int. Workshop Expert Database Systems, (pp. 129–150), Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  28. Motro, A. (1990). FLEX: A Tolerant and Cooperative User Interface to Database.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2, 231–245.Google Scholar
  29. Nicolas, J. -M. and Yazdanian, K. (1978). Integrity Checking in Deductive Databases. In H.G.J. Minker (Ed.),Logic and Databases, New York: Plenum, pp. 325–599.Google Scholar
  30. Pollack, M. (1983). Generating Expert Answers through Goal Inference. Tech. Rep., SRI International, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  31. Reiter, R. (1988). On integrity constraints. In M. Vardi (Ed.),Proc. Second Conf. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning and Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 97–111.Google Scholar
  32. Reiter, R. (1990). On Asking What a Database Knows. In J.W. Lloyd (Ed.),Computational Logic: Symposium Proceedings, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Shum, C. and Muntz, R. (1987). Implicit Representation for Extensional Answers. In L. Kershberg (Ed.),Expert Database Systems.Google Scholar
  34. Sterling, L. and Shapiro, E. (1986).The Art of Prolog. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wahlster, W., Marburger, H., and Busemann, A.J.S. (1983). Over-answering yes-no questions: extended responses in a NL interface to a vision system.Proc. IJCAI. Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terry Gaasterland
    • 1
  • Parke Godfrey
    • 1
  • Jack Minker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege Park
  2. 2.Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations