A Logical Framework for Integrating Inconsistent Information in Multiple Databases

  • Sandra de Amo
  • Walter A. Carnielli
  • João Marcos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2284)


When integrating data coming from multiple different sources we are faced with the possibility of inconsistency in databases. In this paper, we use one of the paraconsistent logics introduced in [9,7] (LFI1) as a logical framework to model possibly inconsistent database instances obtained by integrating different sources.We propose a method based on the sound and complete tableau proof system of LFI1 to treat both the integration process and the evolution of the integrated database submitted to users updates. In order to treat the integrated database evolution, we introduce a kind of generalized database context, the evolutionary databases, which are databases having the capability of storing and manipulating inconsistent information and, at the same time, allowing integrity constraints to change in time. We argue that our approach is sufficiently general and can be applied in most circumstances where inconsistency may arise in databases.


Proof System Integrity Constraint Database Schema Logical Framework Ground Atom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R. and Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases, Addison-Wesley (1995).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agarwal, S., Keller, A. M., Wiederhold, G., Saraswat, K.: Flexible Relation: An Approach for Integrating Data from Multiple, Possibly Inconsistent Databases. Proceedings ICDE, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent Query Answers in Inconsistent Databases. In Proc. of the 18th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, June 1999, Philadelphia, USA, pp 68–79.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Specifying and Querying Database Repairs using Logic Programs with Exceptions. In Proc. 4th International Conference on Flexible Query Aswering Systems, October 2000,Warsaw, Poland, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., Subrahmanian, V. S.: Combining knowledge bases consisting of first-order theories. Computational Intelligence, 8:45–71, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blair, H., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Paraconsistent Logic Programming. Theoretical Computer Science, 68: 135–154, 1989. Also in Proc. Conf. on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, (LNCS 287), 340-360, 1987. IntegrityGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carnielli, W.A. and Marcos, J.: A taxonomy of C-systems To appear in: W. A. Carnielli, M. E. Coniglio, and I. M. L. D’Ottaviano, editors, Paraconsistency: The logical way to the inconsistent. Proceedings of the II World Congress on Paraconsistency (WCP2000). Marcel Dekker, 2001. 5.htm
  8. 8.
    Carnielli, W.A. and Marcos, J.: Tableau systems for logics of formal inconsistency. In: H.R. Arabnia, editor, Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (IC-AI 2001), v. II, p. 848–852. CSREA Press, USA, 2001.
  9. 9.
    Carnielli, W.A., Marcos, J., de Amo, S.: Formal Inconsistency and evolutionary databases. To appear in Logic and Logical Philosophy, 7/8, 2000. 6.htm
  10. 10.
    Carnielli, W.A., de Amo, S.: A logic-based system for controlling inconsistencies in evolutionary databases. Proc. of the VI Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation, (WoLLIC 99), Itatiaia, Brazil, 1998, pp.89–101.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carnielli, Walter A.: Many-valued logics and plausible reasoning. Proceedings of International Symp. on Multiple-valued Logic, Charlotte, U.S.A.,pp. 328–335 IEEE Computer Society Press(1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carnielli, W. A., Lima-Marques, M.: Reasoning under Inconsistent Knowledge. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics, Vol. 2 (1), 1992, pp. 49–79.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carnielli,Walter A.: Systematization of the finite many-valued through the method of tableaux.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    da Costa, Newton C.A.: On the theory of inconsistent formal system, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, v. 11, pp. 497–510 (1974).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dreben, B., Goldburg, W.D.: The Decision Problem: Solvable Classes of Quantificational Formulas. Addison-Wesley, 1979.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dung, P.M.: Integrating Data from Possibly Inconsistency Databases. International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, Brussels, Belgium, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fagin, R., Ullman, J. D., Vardi, M.: On the semantics of updates in databases. In 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages352–365, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fagin, R.: Finite Model Theory: a Personal Perspective. Theoretical Computer Science, 116 (182):3–31, 1994.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gallo, G., Rago, G.: The Satisfiability problem for the Schöenfinkel-Bernays fragment: Partial Instantiation and Hypergraph Algorithms TR 4/94, Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Pisa, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux-Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kifer, M., Lozinskii, E.L: A Logic for Reasoning with Inconsistency. Journal of Automated Reasoning 9: 179–215, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Subrahmanian, V.S.: Amalgamating knowledge bases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 19(2)-1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trakhtenbrot, B.A.: The impossibility of an algorithm for the decision problem for finite domains. (Russian), Doklady Akademii Nauk, SSSR (N.S.) 70, pp 569–572, 1950.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra de Amo
    • 1
  • Walter A. Carnielli
    • 2
  • João Marcos
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceFederal University of UberlândiaUberlândiaBrazil
  2. 2.Group of Theoretical and Applied LogicCLE/IFCH - State University of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceGhent UniversityBelgium

Personalised recommendations