Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Duality for Goal-Driven Query Processing in Disjunctive Deductive Databases

  • Published:
Journal of Automated Reasoning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Bottom-up query-answering procedures tend to explore a much larger search space than what is strictly needed. Top-down processing methods use the query to perform a more focused search that can result in more efficient query answering. Given a disjunctive deductive database, DB, and a query, Q, we establish a strong connection between model generation and clause derivability in two different representations of DB and Q. This allows us to use a bottom-up procedure for evaluating Q against DB in a top-down fashion. The approach requires no extensive rewriting of the input theory and introduces no new predicates. Rather, it is based on a certain duality principle for interpreting logical connectives. The duality transformation is achieved by reversing the direction of implication arrows in the clauses representing both the theory and the negation of the query. The application of a generic bottom-up procedure to the transformed clause set results in top-down query answering. Under favorable conditions efficiency gains are substantial, as shown by our preliminary testing. We give the logical meaning of the duality transformation and point to the conditions and sources of improved efficiency. We show how the duality approach can be used for refined query answering by specifying the minimal conditions (weakest updates) to DB under which Q becomes derivable. This is shown to be useful for view updates in disjunctive deductive databases as well as for other interesting applications.

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.

References

  1. Bancilhon, F., Sagiv, Y. and Ullman, J.: Magic sets and other strange ways to implement logic programs, in Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 1988, pp. 1-15.

  2. Baumgartner, P.: Hyper tableaux - the next generation, in Proceedings of TABLEAUX:98, LNCS 1397, Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 60-76.

  3. Baumgartner, P.: FDPLL - A first-order Davis-Putnam-Logemann-Loveland procedure, in Proceedings of CADE2000, pp. 200-219.

  4. Baumgartner, P., Furbach, U. and Niemelä, I.: Hyper tableaux, in Proceedings of JELIA96, LNAI 1126, Springer-Verlag, 1996.

  5. Bry, F.: Query evaluation in recursive databases: Bottom-up and top-down reconciled, in Data & Knowledge Engineering, 1990, pp. 289-312.

  6. Bry, F. and Yahya, A.: Minimal model generation with positive unit hyper-resolution tableaux, in Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, LNAI 1071, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 143-159.

  7. Bry, F. and Yahya, A.: Positive unit hyper-resolution tableaux and their application to minimal model generation, J. Automated Reasoning 25(1) (2000), 35-82.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Codish, M.: Efficient goal directed bottom-up evaluation of logic programs, J. Logic Programming 38(3) (1999), 354-370.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Demolombe, R.: An efficient strategy for non-Horn deductive databases, Theoret. Comput. Sci. 78(1991), 245-259.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G. and Scarcello, F.: Progress report on the disjunctive deductive database system dlv, in Proceedings of FQAS 1998, LNAI 1495, Springer, 1998, pp. 148-163.

  11. Fernández, J. A. and Minker, J.: Bottom-up computation of perfect models for disjunctive stratified theories, J. Logic Programming 25(1) (1995), 33-50.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fuchs, D. and Fuchs, M.: Cooperation between top-down and bottom-up theorem provers, J. Artif. Intell. Res. 10(1999), 169-198.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grant, J., Horty, J., Lobo, J. and Minker, J.: View updates in disjunctive deductive databases, J. Automated Reasoning 11(1993), 249-267.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hasegawa, R., Inoue, K., Ohta, Y. and Koshimura, M.: Nonhorn magic sets to incorporate topdown inference into bottom-up theorem proving, in Proceedings of CADE97, 1997, pp. 176-190.

  15. Henschen, L. and Naqvi, S.: On compiling queries in recursive first-order databases, J. ACM 31(1) (1984), 47-86.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Inoue, K. and Sakama, C.: A fixpoint characterization of abductive logic programs, J. Logic Programming 27(1996), 107-136.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Johnson, C. A.: Top-down deduction in indefinite deductive databases, in Journ?s Bases de Donn?s Avanc?s, Toulouse, France, 1993, pp. 119-138.

  18. Letz, R. and Stenz, G.: DCTP - A Disconnection Calculus Theorem Prover-System (Abstract), in Proceedings of IJCAR 2001, Siena, Italy, June 2001.

  19. Lloyd, J. W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn, Springer-Verlag, 1987.

  20. Lobo, J., Minker, J. and Rajasekar, A.: Semantics for Horn and disjunctive logic programs, J. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 86(1991), 93-106.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lobo, J., Minker, J. and Rajasekar, A.: Foundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming, MIT Press, 1992.

  22. Loveland, D. W., Reed, D. and Wilson, D.: Satchmore: Satchmo with relevancy, J. Automated Reasoning 14(1995), 349-363.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Loveland, D. W. and Yahya, A.: SATCHMOREBID: SATCHMO(RE) with BIDirectional Relevancy, Preprint.

  24. Lu, W.: Nonmonotonic reasoning based on minimal model generation and its implementation, Ph.D. thesis, Koblenzer Schriften zur Informatik 11, Fölbach Verlag, Koblenz, 1999.

  25. Manthey, R. and Bry, F.: Satchmo: A theorem prover implemented in Prolog, in J. L. Lassez (ed.), Proc. of the 9th CADE, 1988, pp. 456-459.

  26. Minker, J.: On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption, in Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci.138, Springer, 1982, pp. 292-308.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Niemelä, I.: A tableau calculus for minimal model reasoning, in Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods, LNAI 1071, Springer, 1996, pp. 278-294.

  28. Neiman, V.: Refutation search for Horn sets by a subgoal extraction method, J. Logic Programming 9(1990), 267-284.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ohta, Y., Inoue, K. and Hasegawa, R.: On the relationship between non-Horn magic sets and relevancy testing, in Proceedings of CADE-15, LNAI 421, 1998, pp. 333-348.

  30. Rajasekar, A. and Yusuf, H.: DWAM - a WAM model extension for disjunctive logic programming, Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence 14(1995), 275-308.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ramsay, A.: Generating relevant models, J. Automated Reasoning 7(1991), 359-368.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ramakrishnan, R. and Sudarshan, S.: Top-down vs. bottom-up revisited, in Proceedings of the ISLP’91, 1991.

  33. Reiter, R.: On closed world databases, in H. Gallaire and J. Minker (eds.), Logic and Data Bases, Plenum Press, New York, 1978, pp. 55-76.

  34. Rohmer, J., Lescoeur, R. and Kerisit, J.-M.: The Alexander method: A technique for the processing of recursive axioms in deductive databases, New Generation Computing 4(3) (1986), 1273-1285.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Royer, V.: Backward chaining evaluation in stratified disjunctive theories, in Proceedings of PODS’90, 1990, pp. 183-195.

  36. Seipel, D., Minker, J. and Ruiz, C.: Model generation and state generation for disjunctive logic programs, J. Logic Programming 32(1) (1997), 48-69.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shimajiri, Y., Seki, H. and Itoh, H.: Goal-directed query processing in disjunctive logic databases, in Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Programming Languages: Implementations, Logics and Programs PLILP’95, LNCS 982, Springer, 1995, pp. 415-430.

  38. Stickel, M.: Meta interpretation of the model elimination theorem proving procedure for deduction and abduction, J. Automated Reasoning 13(2) (1994), 189-210.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Treitel, M. and Genesereth, M.: Choosing directions of rules, J. Automated Reasoning 3(2) (1987), 395-431.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yahya, A.: Generalized query answering in disjunctive deductive databases: Procedural and nonmonotonic aspects, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, LNCS 1265, Springer, July 1997, pp. 278-294.

  41. Yahya, A.: Minimal model generation for refined answering of generalized queries in disjunctive deductive databases, J. Data and Knowledge Engineering 34(2000), 219-249.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Yahya, A.: A goal-driven approach to efficient query processing in disjunctive deductive databases, Technical Report PMS-FB-1996-12, Department of Computer Science, Munich University, July 1996.

  43. Yahya, A. and Henschen, L. J.: Deduction in non-Horn databases, J. Automated Reasoning 1(2) (1985), 141-160.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Yahya, A. and Minker, J.: Representations for disjunctive deductive databases, Technical Report CS-TR-3111 UMIACS-TR-93-70, Department of Computer Science and UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, July 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electrical Engineering Department, Birzeit University, Birzeit, Palestine. e-mail

    Adnan H. Yahya

Authors
  1. Adnan H. Yahya
    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

Yahya, A.H. Duality for Goal-Driven Query Processing in Disjunctive Deductive Databases. Journal of Automated Reasoning 28, 1–34 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020109502432

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020109502432

Search

Navigation