Drawing updates from derivations

  • Hendrik Decker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 470)


We propose a method for satisfying update requests in deductive databases. The setting is a generalization of the view update problem in relational databases. Updates can be drawn from goals and input clauses in derivations that are rooted at the request. An update may be invalidated by negation or integrity constraints. Thus, it may be necessary to try other updates, drawn from the same or other derivations. We show that an SLDNF tree provides for derivations from which a complete set of possible updates for a delete request can be drawn. SLDNF trees are generally not complete for insert requests; rather, more derivations than there are in an SLDNF tree have to be computed for obtaining completeness of updates, in general. Therefore, we define view update trees and show that a complete set of possible view updates for insert requests can be drawn from them. We specify a literal selection strategy that avoids the construction of redundant derivations.


Belief Revision Integrity Constraint Base Goal Ground Instance Deductive Database 
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. [AP]
    K.R. Apt, J.M. Pugin, Management of Stratified Databases, Tech. Report TR-87-41, Dept. of Comp. Sc., Univ. of Texas at Austin, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [Ab]
    S. Abiteboul, Updates, A New Frontier, Proc. ICDT 88, 1–18, Springer, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [BDM]
    F. Bry, H. Decker, R. Manthey, A Uniform Approach to Constraint Satisfaction and Constraint Satisfiability in Deductive Databases, Proc. EDBT 88, 488–505, Springer, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. [BH]
    A. Bruffaerts, E. Henin, Proof Trees for Negation as Failure: Yet Another Prolog Meta-Interpreter, Proc. 5th ICLP, 343–358, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [Br]
    F. Bry, Intensional Updates: Abduction via Deduction, Proc. 7th ICLP, 561–578, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [CL]
    L. Cavedon, J.W. Lloyd, A Completeness Theorem For SLDNF-Resolution, J. Logic Programming 7,3:177–191, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [DB]
    U. Dayal, P.A. Bernstein, On the correct translation of update operations on relational views, ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 8,3:382–416, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. [De1]
    H. Decker, Integrity Enforcement on Deductive Databases, in L. Kerschberg (ed), Expert Database Systems, 381–395, Benjamin/Cummings, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. [De2]
    H. Decker, The Range Form of Deductive Databases and Queries, or: How to Avoid Floundering, Proc. 5th OGAI, Informatik Fachberichte 208, 114–123, Springer, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [De3]
    H. Decker, Drawing Updates From Derivations (long version), IR-KB-65, ECRC, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. [De4]
    H. Decker, Belief Revision in Deductive Databases, ESPRIT BRA #3012 deliverable, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. [Do]
    J. Doyle, A Truth Maintenance System, Artificial Intelligence 12:231–272, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [El]
    C. Elcan, A Rational Reconstruction of Nonmonotonic Truth Maintenance Systems, Artificial Intelligence 43(2):219–234, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [dK]
    J. de Kleer, An assumption-based TMS, Artificial Intelligence 28:127–162, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. [EK]
    K. Eshghi, R.A. Kowalski, Abduction compared with Negation as Failure, Proc. 6th ICLP, 234–254, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [FC]
    A. L. Furtado, M. A. Casanova, Updating Relational Views, in W. Kim et al (eds), Query processing in Database Systems, 127–142, Springer, 1985.Google Scholar
  17. [FKUV]
    R. Fagin, G.M. Kuper, J.D. Ullman, M.Y. Vardi, Updating Logical Databases, Advances in Computing Research, 3:1–18, JAI Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. [GL1]
    A. Guessoum, J.W. Lloyd, Updating Knowledge Bases, New Generation Computing 8(1):71–89, OHMSHA and Springer, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. [GL2]
    A. Guessoum, J.W. Lloyd, Updating Knowledge Bases II, Univ. Bristol, Comp. Sc., TR-90-13, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. [GMN]
    H. Gallaire, J. Minker, J.M. Nicolas, Logic and Databases: A Deductive Approach, Comp. Surveys 16(2):153–185, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. [KM1]
    A. Kakas, P. Mancarella, Database Updates through Abduction, to appear in Proc. VLDB 90, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. [KM2]
    A. Kakas, P. Mancarella, Knowledge Assimilation and Truth Maintenance through Abduction, Proc. 3rd Int'l Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 1990.Google Scholar
  23. [Ll1]
    J.W. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edition, 1987. Springer, 1987.Google Scholar
  24. [Ll2]
    J.W. Lloyd, Directions for Meta-Programming, Proc. 5th FGCS, 609–617, ICOT, 1988.Google Scholar
  25. [Ma]
    S. Manchanda, Declarative Expression of Deductive Database Updates, Proc. 8th PoDS, 93–100, 1989.Google Scholar
  26. [MB]
    R. Manthey, F. Bry, SATCHMO: a theorem prover implemented in Prolog, Proc. 9th CADE, 415–434, Springer, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. [MW]
    S. Manchanda, D.S. Warren, Towards a Logical Theory of Database View Updates, in J. Minker (ed), Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, 363–394, Morgan, Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  28. [NY]
    J.M. Nicolas, K. Yazdanian, An Outline of BDGEN: A Deductive DBMS, Proc. IFIP 83, 711–717, Elsevier, 1983.Google Scholar
  29. [Na]
    L. Naish, Declarative Diagnosis of Missing Answers, Tech. Report 88/9, Dept. of Comp. Sc., Univ. Melbourne, 1988.Google Scholar
  30. [PCA]
    L.M. Pereira, M. Calejo, J. Aparicio, Refining Knowledge Base Updates, Al Center UNINOVA, Lisbon, 1989.Google Scholar
  31. [PA]
    L.M. Pereira, J. Aparicio, Default Reasoning as Abduction, Al Center UNINOVA, Lisbon, 1990.Google Scholar
  32. [Pe]
    L.M. Pereira, Rational Debugging in Logic Programs, Proc. 3rd ICLP, 203–210, 1986.Google Scholar
  33. [Po]
    D.L. Poole, A Logical Framework for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 36:27–47, 1988.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. [RN]
    F. Rossi, S. Naqvi, Contributions to the View Update Problem, Proc. 6th ICLP, 398–415, 1989.Google Scholar
  35. [Re]
    R. Reiter, A Logic for Default Reasoning, Artificial Intelligence 13:81–132, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [Sm]
    R.M. Smullyan, First Order Logic, Springer, 1968.Google Scholar
  37. [Th]
    J.A. Thom, A Declarative Approach to Database Updates, Tech. Report 1/88, Dept. of Comp. Sc., Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, 1988.Google Scholar
  38. [To]
    A. Tomasci, View Update Annotation in Definite Deductive Databases, Proc. ICDT 88, 338–352, Springer, 1988.Google Scholar
  39. [YS]
    L.U. Yalcinalp, L.S. Sterling, An integrated Interpreter for Explaining Prolog's successes and failures, Proc. Workshop on Meta-Programming in Logic Programming, 147–160, Bristol, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hendrik Decker
    • 1
  1. 1.Munich 83

Personalised recommendations