Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Query by class, rule, and concept

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ideal query language for a knowledge base will probably never be found: easy formulation and easy evaluation of queries are two conflicting goals. Easy formulation asks for a flexible, expressive language near to human language or gestures. Easy evaluation of queries requires an effective mapping to machine code, which computes the correct answer in a finite number of steps. This article approaches the problem by a query language with three faces. The first projects queries to concepts of the knowledge representation language KL-One for easy formulation and readability. The second presents queries as rules of a deductive database with fixpoint semantics. The third presents queries as classes whose instances are the materialized answer (view) to the query. The methods for maintaining and updating the views are compiled from their deductive interpretation.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Goldberg and D. Robson,Smalltalk-80: The Language and Its Implementation Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  2. B. Mitschang, “Extending the ralational algebra to capture complex objects,” inProc. 15th Int. Conf. Very Large Databases, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 297–305.

  3. M. H. Scholl, C. Laasch, and M. Tresch, “Updatable views in object oriented databases,” inProc. 2nd Int. Conf. Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases Munich, Germany, Springer, pp. 189–207, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Kifer, W. Kim, and Y. Sagiv, “Querying object-oriented databases,” inProc. ACM-SIGMOID Int. Conf. Management of Data, San Diego, CA, 1992, pp. 393–402.

  5. B. Freitag, H. Schütz, and G. Specht, “LOLA—A logic language for deductive databases and its implementation,” inProc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Database Systems for Advanced Applications Tokyo, Japan, World Scientific, 1991, pp. 216–225.

    Google Scholar 

  6. L. Vielle, P. Bayer, V. Küchenhoff, A. Lefebvre, and R. Manthey,Documentation for EKS-VI Technical Report TR-KB-36, ECRC, Munich, Germany, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Naqvi and T. Tsur,A Logical Language for Data and Knowledge Bases, Computer Science Press, 1989.

  8. S. Ceri, G. Gottlob, and L. Tanca,Logic Programming and Databases Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Beeri and R. Ramakrishnan, “On the power of magic,” inProc. 6th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT Symp. Principles of Database Syst., ACM Press, 1987.

  10. L. Vieille, “Recursive axioms in deductive databases: The query-subquery approach,” inProc. 1st Int. Conf. Expert Database Systems, 1986.

  11. F. Bry, H. Decker, and R. Manthey, “A uniform approach to constraint satisfaction and constraint satisfiability in deductive databases,” inInt. Conf. on Extending Database Technol. Springer LNCS 303, Venice, Italy, 1988, pp. 488–505.

    Google Scholar 

  12. A. Olivé, “Integrity constraints checking in deductive databases,” inProc. 17th Int. Conf. Very Large Databases, Barcelona, Spain, 1991, pp. 513–524.

  13. K. Eshghi and R. A. Kowalski, “Abduction compared with negation by failure,” inProc. 6th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming edited by G. Levi and M. Martelli, MIT Press: Lisbon, pp. 234–254, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. C. Kakas and P. Mancarella, “Database updates through abduction,” inProc. 16th Int. Conf. Very Large Databases, 1990, pp. 650–661.

  15. U. S. Chakravarthy, J. Grant, and J. Minker, “Logic-based approach to semantic query optimization,”ACM Trans. Database Syst. vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 162–207, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. Ceri and J. Widom, “Deriving production rules for incremental view maintenance,” inProc. 17th Int. Conf. Very Large Databases, Barcelona, Spain, 1991, pp. 577–589.

  17. R. J. Brachman and J. G. Schmolze, “An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system,”Cogn. Sci. vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 171–216, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  18. H. W. Beck, S. K. Gala, and S. B. Navathe, “Classification as a query processing technique in the CANDIDE semantic data model,” inProc. 5th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, 1989, pp. 572–581.

  19. A. Borgida, R. J. Brachman, D. McGuiness, and L. A. Resnick, “CLASSIC: A structural data model for Objects,” inProc. ACM-SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, 1988, pp. 58–67.

  20. F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and W. Nutt, “The complexity of concept languages,” inProc. 2nd Int. Conf. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA, pp. 151–162, 1991.

  21. S. Bergamaschi and C. Sartori, “On taxonomic reasoning in conceptual design,”ACM Trans. Database Syst. vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 385–422, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  22. M. Jeusfeld,Update Control in Deductive Object Bases (in German). Infix-Verlag: St. Augustin, Germany, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. Mylopoulos, A. Borgida, M. Jarke, and M. Koubarakis, “Telos: a language for representing knowledge about information systems,” inACM Trans. Inf. Syst. vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 325–362, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  24. M. Staudt,Query Representation and Evaluation in Deductive Object Bases (in German), Diploma thesis, Universität Passau, Germany, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. Borgida, “From type systems to knowledge representation: natural semantics specifications for description logics,”Int. J. Intell. Coop. Inf. Syst. vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 93–126, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  26. R. J. Brachman, D. L. McGuinness, P. F. Patel-Schneider, L. A. Resnick, and A. Borgida, “Living with CLASSIC: When and how to use a KL-ONE-like language,” inPrinciples of Semantic Networks edited by J. Sowa, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  27. B. Hollunder, W. Nutt, and M. Schmidt-Schauss, “Subsumption algorithms for concept description languages,” inProc. 9th Eur. Conf. Artif. Intell., John Wiley & Sons, 1990, pp. 348–353.

  28. M. Jarke (ed.),ConceptBase V3.1 User Manual Report Aachener InformatikBerichte Nr. 92-17, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  29. J. W. Lloyd and R. W. Topor, “Making PROLOG more expressive,”J. Logic Programming, pp. 225–240, 1984.

  30. H. J. Thoennissen,Design and Implementation of an Object Algebra for a Deductive Object Base System (in German), Diploma thesis, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  31. M. Jeusfeld and M. Jarke, “From relational to object-oriented integrity simplification,” inProc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, volum 566 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 460–477, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  32. U. Dayal, “Active database management systems,” inProc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Data and Knowledge Bases, Jerusalem, Israel, 1988.

  33. R. Fagin, J. D. Ullman, and M. Y. Vardi, “On the semantics of updates in databases,” inProc. of 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD, 1983, pp. 352–365.

  34. P. Gärdenfors,Knowledge in Flux MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  35. M. Jeusfeld and M. Staudt, “Query optimization in deductive object bases,” inQuery Processing for Advanced Database Applications edited by Freytag et al., Morgan-Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  36. M. Buchheit, M. A. Jeusfeld, W. Nutt, and M. Staudt, “Subsumption between queries to object-oriented databases,” Report Aachener Informatik-Berichte 93-9, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  37. P. S. Chen, R. Hennicker, and M. Jarke, “On the retrieval of reusable software components,” inProc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Software Reuse, Lucca, Italy, 1993.

  38. T. Rose, M. Jarke, and J. Mylopoulos, “Organizing software repositories—modeling requirements and implementation experiences,” inProc. 16th Int. Computer Software Appl. Conf., Chicago, IL, 1992.

  39. G. Steinke, “Design aspects of access control in a knowledge base system,” inComputers & Security vol. 10, no. 7, pp. 612–625, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  40. A. Klemann,Schema Integration of Relational Databases (in German), Diploma thesis, Universität Passau, Germany, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  41. S. Abiteboul, “Towards a deductive object-oriented database language,”Data Knowledge Eng. vol. 5, pp. 263–287, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  42. F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and A. Schaerf, “A hybrid system with datalog and concept languages,” inTrends in Artificial Intelligence edited by E. Ardizzone, S. Gaglio, and F. Sorbello, volume 549 inLecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence Springer-Verlag: Berlin, pp. 88–97, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Informatik V, RWTH Aachen, Ahornstr. 55, 52056, Aachen, Germany

    Martin Staudt, Hans W. Nissen & Manfred A. Jeusfeld

Authors
  1. Martin Staudt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans W. Nissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manfred A. Jeusfeld
    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

Staudt, M., Nissen, H.W. & Jeusfeld, M.A. Query by class, rule, and concept. Appl Intell 4, 133–156 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872106

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872106

Key words

Search

Navigation