The Revised Gärdenfors postulates and update semantics

  • Leigh Willard
  • Li Yan Yuan
Updates
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 470)

Abstract

The Gärdenfors postulates can serve as a foundation for the semantics of updates on knowledge sets. It is shown that knowledge sets and Gärdenfors' postulates are not adequate in the deductive database setting. Therefore, partially closed theories are defined for deductive database updates and the Gärdenfors postulates are revised accordingly. By recognizing epistemic importance among clauses in the database, a new deductive database update semantics in the context of partially closed theories is also proposed. The new semantics satisfy the revised Gärdenfors postulates.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AB88]
    Abiteboul, S. Updates a New Frontier, Intl. Conf. on Database Theory, pp. 1–18, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [AGM85]
    Alchourron, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D., On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:2, pp.510–531, June 1985.Google Scholar
  3. [Da88]
    Dalal, M., Updates in Propositional Databases, DCS-TR-222, Dept. of Computer Science, Rutgers University, Feb 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [FUV83]
    Fagin, R., Ullman, J. D., Vardi, M. Y. On the Semantics of Updates in Databases, ACM PODS, pp. 352–365, March 1983.Google Scholar
  5. [Ga84]
    Gärdenfors, P., Epistemic Importance and Minimal Changes of Belief, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62, pp. 137–157, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. [Ha86]
    Hadley, R. F., Fagin and Halpern on Logical Omniscience: A Critique with an Alternative, Proc. of the 6th Canadian Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 49–56, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. [KM89]
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A. O., A Unified View of Propositional Knowledge Base Updates, 11th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, 1989, pp. 1413–1419.Google Scholar
  8. [KUV84]
    Kuper, G. M., Ullman, J. D., Vardi, M. Y., On the Equivalence of Logical Databases, Proc. of the 3rd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 221–228, April 1984.Google Scholar
  9. [Llo87]
    Lloyd, J. W., Foundations of Logic Programming, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, second edition 1987.Google Scholar
  10. [Wi86]
    Winslett, M., A Model-Theoretic Approach to Updating Logical Databases (Extended Abstract), Proc. of the 5th ACM PODS, Cambridge, pp. 224–234, March 1986.Google Scholar
  11. [Wi88a]
    Winslett, M., A Framework for Comparison of Update Semantics (Extended Abstract), Proc. of the 7th ACM PODS, pp. 315–325, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [Wi88b]
    Winslett, M., Reasoning About Action using a Possible Models Approach, Proc. of the 7th National (USA) Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 89–93, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leigh Willard
    • 1
  • Li Yan Yuan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations