Recursively indefinite databases

  • R. van der Meyden
Logic And Databases
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 470)

Abstract

We define recursively indefinite databases, a new type of logical database in which indefinite information arises from partial knowledge of the fixpoint of a datalog program. Although, in general, query answering is undecidable, there exists a broad class of queries for which it is decidable, a result we establish by making connections with the theory of hypergraph edge replacement graph grammars. We analyze the complexity of query answering for this class of queries under various constraints and demonstrate a class of databases which generalizes disjunctive databases, but without increasing data complexity.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. [1]
    A.K. Chandra, D.C. Kozen, and L.J. Stockmeyer. Alternation. Journal of the ACM, 28:114–133, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    B. Courcelle. An axiomatic definition of context-free rewriting and its application to NLC graph grammars. Theoretical Computer Science, 55:141–181, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    B. Courcelle. On using context-free graph grammars for analyzing recursive definitions. In K. Fuchi and L. Kott, editors, Programming of Future Generation Computers II Proceedings of the Second Franco-Japanese Symposium on Programming of Future Generation Computers, pages 83–122. North Holland, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Courcelle. The monadic second order logic of graphs. I. Recognizable sets of finite graphs. Information and Computation, 85(1):12–75, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Gaifman, H. Mairson, Y. Sagiv, and M. Vardi. Undecidable optimization problems for database logic programs. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 106–115, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Habel and H.-J. Kreowski. May we introduce to you: Hyperedge replacement. In H. Ehrig, M. Nagl, G. Rozenberg, and A. Rosenfeld, editors, Graph-Grammars and their Applications to Computer Science 3rd International Workshop LNCS No. 291, pages 15–26. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Habel and H.-J. Kreowski. Some structural aspects of hypergraph languages generated by hyperedge replacement. In F.J. Brandenburg, G. Vidal-Vaquet, and M. Wirsig, editors, STACS'87 4th Annual Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science LNCS No. 291, pages 207–219. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    T. Imielinski. Incomplete deductive databases. unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    T. Imielinski and K. Vadaparty. Complexity of query processing in databases with or-objects. In Proceedings of the Eighth annual SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems, pages 51–65, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Phokion K. Kolaitis and Christos H. Papadimitriou. Some computational aspects of circumscription. Journal of the ACM, 37(1):1–14, January 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    T. Lengauer and E. Wanke. Efficient analysis of graph properties on context-free graph languages (extended abstract). In T. Lepisto and A. Salomaa, editors, Proceedings of ICALP'88 LNCS No. 317, pages 379–393. Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. Lifschitz. Computing circumscription. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence, pages 121–127, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    V. Lifschitz. Pointwise circumscription. In M.L. Ginsburg, editor, Readings in Non-Monotonic Reasoning, pages 179–193. Morgan Kaufman, 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. McCarthy. Circumscription — a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:27–39, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    J. McCarthy. Applications of circumscription to non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 28:89–116, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    L.T. McCarty. Computing with prototypes. Technical Report LRP-TR-22, Computer Science Department, Rutgers University, 1990. A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the Bar Ilan Symposium on the Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Ramat Gan, Israel, June 1989.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Naughton and Y. Sagiv. Minimizing expansions of recursions. In H. Ait-Kaci and M. Nivat, editors, Resolution of Equations in Algebraic Structures I Algebraic Techniques, pages 321–350. Academic Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Y. Sagiv. Optimizing datalog programs. In Proceedings of the Sixth annual SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems, pages 349–362, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    W. Savitch. Relationships between non-deterministic and deterministic tape complexities. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 4:177–192, 1970.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    O. Shmueli. Decidabilty and expressiveness aspects of logic queries. In Proceedings of the Sixth annual SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems, pages 237–249, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Vardi. Querying logical databases. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 33:142–160, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. Vardi. Decidability and undecidability results for boundedness of linear recursive queries. In Proceedings of the Seventh annual SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems, pages 341–350, 1988.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    E. Wanke. The complexity of connectivity problems on context-free graph languages. In J. Csirik, J. Demetrovics, and F. Gecseg, editors, Fundamentals of Computation Theory, Proceedings International Conference FCT'89 LNCS No. 380, pages 470–479. Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. van der Meyden
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Computer ScienceRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations