Advertisement

Semantics of disjunctive deductive databases

  • José Alberto Fernández
  • Jack Minker
Invited Lectures
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 646)

Abstract

A review is presented of work on disjunctive deductive databases. The semantic approach to disjunctive deductive databases as developed by Fernández and Minker is explored. The method is applied to stratified and stable model semantics for disjunctive deductive databases. The semantics for updating a subclass of disjunctive deductive databases is described.

Keywords

Logic Program Minimal Model Logic Programming Integrity Constraint Predicate Symbol 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ABW88]
    K.R. Apt, H.A. Blair, and A. Walker. Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann Pub., Washington, D.C., 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [AvE82]
    K.R. Apt and M.H. van Emden. Contributions to the Theory of Logic Programming. J.ACM, 29(3):841–862, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. [BE89]
    A. Borgida and D.W. Etherington. Hierarchical knowledge bases and efficient disjunction. In Proc. of the First Intl. Conf. on Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-89), pages 33–43, Toronto, Canada, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [Bis81a]
    J. Biskup. A formal approach to null values in database relations. In J. Minker H. Gallaire and J. M. Nicolas, editors, Advances in Data Base Theory, volume 1, pages 299–341. Plenum Press, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. [Bis81b]
    J. Biskup. A foundation of Codd's relational maybe-operations. University Park, 1981. Pennsylvania State Univ.Google Scholar
  6. [BLM89a]
    C. Baral, J. Lobo, and J. Minker. Generalized disjunctive well-founded semantics for logic programs. Technical report, Dept of Computer Science, Univ. of Maryland, College Park Md 20742, 1989. To appear in Annals of Math. and AI.Google Scholar
  7. [BLM89b]
    C. Baral, J. Lobo, and J. Minker. Generalized well-founded semantics for logic programs. In M. E. Stickel, editor, Proc. of Tenth Intl. Conf. on Automated Deduction, pages 102–116, Kaiserslautern, Germany, Jul. 1989. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. [BLM90a]
    C. Baral, J. Lobo, and J. Minker. Generalized disjunctive well-founded semantics for logic programs: Declarative semantics. In M. Zemankova Z. W. Ras and M. L. Emrich, editors, Proc. of Fifth Intl. Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pages 465–473, Charlotte, NC, 1990. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  9. [BLM90b]
    C. Baral, J. Lobo, and J. Maker. Generalized disjunctive well-founded semantics for logic programs: Procedural semantics. In M. Zemankova Z. W. Ras and M. L. Emrich, editors, Proc. of Fifth Intl. Symposium on Methodologies for Inelligent Systems, pages 456–464, Charlotte, NC, 1990. North-Holland.Google Scholar
  10. [BLM91]
    C. Baral, J. Lobo, and J. Minker. WF3: A semantics for negation in normal disjunctive logic programs. In Proc. of the 6th Intl. Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Charlotte, NC, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. [BS85]
    G. Bossu and P. Siegel. Saturation, nonmonotonic reasoning and the closed-world assumption. Artificial Intelligence, 25(1):13–63, Jan. 1985.Google Scholar
  12. [CH85]
    A. Chandra and D. Harel. Horn clause queries and generalizations. Journal of Logic Programming, 2(I):1–15, Apr. 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [CH88]
    S. Chi and L. Henschen. Recursive query answering with non-Horn clauses. In E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, editors, Proc. 9th Intl. Conf. on Automated Deduction, pages 294–312, Argonne, IL, May 1988.Google Scholar
  14. [Cha89]
    E. Chan. A possible world semantics for non-Horn databases, 1989. Univ. of Waterloo, Canada.Google Scholar
  15. [Cla78]
    K. L. Clark. Negation as Failure. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors, Logic and Data Bases, pages 293–322. Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. [Cod79]
    E. F. Cpdd. Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning. Trans. Database Systems, 4(4):397–434, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. [CS90]
    J. Chomicki and V.S. Subrahmanian. Generalized closed world assumption is π20-complete. Information Processing Letters, 34:289–291, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. [Dal92]
    M. Dalal. Some tractable classes of disjunctive logic programs. Technical report, Rutgers Univ., 1992.Google Scholar
  19. [Dec91a]
    H. Decker. On alternative models, fixpoints and consistency of disjunctive databases, May 1991.Google Scholar
  20. [Dec91b]
    H. Decker. On the declarative, operational and procedural semantics of disjunctive computational theories. In Proc. of the 2th Intl. Workshop on the Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases, Aiguablava, Spain, Sept. 1991. Invited paper.Google Scholar
  21. [FLMS91]
    J. A. Fernández, J. Lobo, J. Minker, and V.S. Subrahmanian. Disjunctive LP + integrity constraints = stable models semantics. In L. Lakshmanan, editor, Proc. of the ILPS'91 Workshop on Deductive Databases, pages 110–117, San Diego, CA, Oct. 1991. A full version has been submitted to Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  22. [FM91a]
    J. A. Fernández and J. Minker. Bottom-up evaluation of Hierarchical Disjunctive Deductive Databases. In K. Furukawa, editor, Logic Programming Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. [FM91b]
    J. A. Fernández and J. Minker. Computing perfect models of disjunctive stratified databases. In D. Loveland, J. Lobo, and A. Rajasekar, editors, Proc. of the ILPS'91 Workshop on Disjunctive Logic Programs, pages 110–117, San Diego, CA, Oct. 1991. An extended version has been submitted to Annals of Math. and AI.Google Scholar
  24. [FUV83]
    R. Fagin, J.D. Ullman, and M.Y. Vardi. On the semantics of updates in databases. In Proc. 7th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 352–365, 1983.Google Scholar
  25. [FUV89]
    R. Fagin, J. Ullman, and M. Vardi. Contributions to the view update problem. In Proc. of the Sixth Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 398–415, 1989.Google Scholar
  26. [GHLM92]
    J. Grant, J. Horty, J. Lobo, and J. Minker. On the semantics of updates in databases. Presented at the Second Intl. Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, Jan. 1992.Google Scholar
  27. [GL88]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. of the 5th Logic Programming Symposium, pages 1070–1080, Assoc. for Logic Programming, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1988.Google Scholar
  28. [GL90a]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschits. Logic programs with classical negation. In D.H.D. Warren and P. Szeredi, editors, Logic Programming — Proc. of the Seventh Intl. Conf., pages 579–597. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  29. [GL90b]
    A. Guessoum and J. Lloyd. Updating knowledge bases. New Generation Computing, 8:71–89, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. [GL91]
    A. Guessoum and J. Lloyd. Updating knowledge bases ii. New Generation Computing, 10:73–100, 1991.Google Scholar
  31. [GM78]
    H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors. Logic and Databases. Plenum Press, New York, Apr. 1978.Google Scholar
  32. [GMN84]
    H. Gallaire, J. Minker, and J-M. Nicolas. Logic and databases: A deductive approach. ACM Computing Surveys, 16(2):153–185, Jun. 1984.Google Scholar
  33. [GPP86]
    M. Gelfond, H. Przymusinska, and T.C. Przymusinski. The extended closed world assumption and its relation to parallel circumscription. Proc. Fifth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 133–139, 1986.Google Scholar
  34. [GPP89]
    M. Gelfond, H. Przymusinska, and T.C. Przymusinski. On the Relationship between Circumscription and Negation as Failure. Artificial Intelligence, 38:75–94, 1989.Google Scholar
  35. [Gra77]
    J. Grant. Null values in a relational data. base. Information Processing Letters, 6(5):156–157, 1977.Google Scholar
  36. [Hil74]
    R. Hill. Lush resolution and its completeness. Technical Report DCL Memo 78, Department of Artificial Intelligence, Univ. of Edinburgh, Aug. 1974.Google Scholar
  37. [HP88]
    L.J. Henschen and H. Park. Compiling the GCWA in Indefinite Databases. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 395–438. Morgan Kaufmann Pub., Washington, D.C., 1988.Google Scholar
  38. [IL84]
    T. Imielinski and W. Lipski. Incomplete information in relational databases. J. ACM, 31(4):761–791, 1984.Google Scholar
  39. [Imi91]
    T. Imielinski. Incomplete deductive databases. Annals of Math. and AI., 3:259–293, 1991.Google Scholar
  40. [IV89]
    T. Imielinski and K. Vadaparty. Complexity of Query Processing in Databases with OR-Objects. In Proc. 7th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 51–65, Phil., PA, Mar. 29–31 1989.Google Scholar
  41. [Kow78]
    R.A. Kowalski. Logic for data description. In H. Gallaire J. Minker, editor, Logic and Data Bases, pages 77–102. Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  42. [Lif86]
    V. Lifschitz. Pointwise circumscription: A preliminary report. AAAI, pages 406–410, 1986.Google Scholar
  43. [Lip81]
    W. Lipski. On databases with incomplete information. volume 28, pages 41–70. ACM, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
  44. [Llo87]
    J.W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, second edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  45. [LMR92]
    J. Lobo, J. Minker, and A. Rajasekar. Fundations of Disjunctive Logic Programming. MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  46. [LS90a]
    K.C. Liu and R. Sunderraman. Indefinite and maybe information in relational databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 15(1):1–39, 1990.Google Scholar
  47. [LS90b]
    K.-C. Liu and R. Sunderraman. On representing indefinite and maybe information in relational databases: A generalization. In Proc. of IEEE Data Engineering, pages 495–502, Los Angeles, Feb. 1990.Google Scholar
  48. [LYW92]
    J. Lobo, C. Yu, and G. Wang. Computing the transitive closure in disjunctive databases. Technical report, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, 1992.Google Scholar
  49. [McC80]
    J. McCarthy. Circumscription — a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1 and 2):27–39, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [MG86]
    J. Minker and J. Grant. Answering queries in indefinite databases and the null value problem. In P. Kanellakis, editor, Advances in Computing Research, pages 247–267. 1986.Google Scholar
  51. [Min82]
    J. Minker. On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption. In Proc. of 6th Conf. on Automated Deduction, pages 292–308, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
  52. [Min86]
    J. Minker. Proc. of workshop on foundations of deductive databases and logic programming, Aug. 1986.Google Scholar
  53. [Min88]
    J. Minker. Perspectives in deductive databases. Journal of Logic Programming, 5:33–60, 1988.Google Scholar
  54. [Min89]
    J. Minker. Toward a foundation of disjunctive logic programming. In E.L. Lusk and R.A. Overbeek, editors, Proc. North American Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 1215–1235, 1989.Google Scholar
  55. [MR87]
    J. Minker and A. Rajasekar. A Fixpoint Semantics for Non-Horn Logic Programs. Technical Report CS-TR-1869, Department of Computer Science Univ. of Maryland, College Park, 1987.Google Scholar
  56. [MR90]
    J. Minker and A. Rajasekar. A fixpoint semantics for disjunctive logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 1990.Google Scholar
  57. [Prz88]
    T. C. Przymusinski. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programming. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, chapter 5, pages 193–216. Morgan Kaufmann Pub., Washington, D.C., 1988.Google Scholar
  58. [Prz90a]
    T. Przymusinski. Stationary semantics for disjunctive logic programs and deductive databases. In S. Debray and M. Hermenegildo, editors, Proc. of the North American Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 40–62, Austin, TX, Oct. 1990.Google Scholar
  59. [Prz90b]
    T. C. Przymusinski. Extended stable semantics for normal and disjunctive programs. In Proc. of the 7 th Intl. Logic Programming Conf., pages 459–477, Jerusalem, 1990. MIT Press. Extended Abstract.Google Scholar
  60. [Rei78]
    R. Reiter. On Closed World Data Bases. In H. Gauaire and J. Minker, editors, Logic and Data Bases, pages 55–76. Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  61. [Rei84]
    R. Reiter. Towards a Logical Reconstruction of Relational Database Theory. Springer-Verlag Pub., New York, 1984.Google Scholar
  62. [Rei86]
    R. Reiter. A sound and sometimes complete query evaluation algorithm for relational databases with null values. J.ACM, 33(2):349–370, Apr. 1986.Google Scholar
  63. [Rei90]
    R. Reiter. What should a database know? In Proc. of the 7th Intl. Conf. on Logic Programming, page 765, Jerusalem, 1990. Abstract of Invited Talk.Google Scholar
  64. [Ros89]
    K. Ross. Well-founded semantics for disjunctive logic programs. In Proc. of the first Intl. Conf. on Deductive and Object Oriented Databases, pages 352–369, Kyoto, Japan, Dec. 1989.Google Scholar
  65. [Sak89]
    C. Sakama. Possible model semantics for disjunctive databases. In Proc. First Intl. Conf. on Deductive and Object Oriented Databases, pages 337–351, 1989.Google Scholar
  66. [Suc89]
    M. Such. Minimal models for closed world databases. In Z.W. Ras, editor, Proc. of ISMIS 4, pages 515–522, 1989.Google Scholar
  67. [U1188a]
    J. D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems I. Principles of Computer Science Series. Computer Science Press, Rockville, MD 20850, 1988.Google Scholar
  68. [U1188b]
    J. D. Ullman. Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems II. Principles of Computer Science Series. Computer Science Press, Rockville, MD 20850, 1988.Google Scholar
  69. [Van88]
    A. Van Gelder. Negation as Failure Using Tight Derivations for General Logic Programs. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 1149–176. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  70. [Var82]
    M.Y. Vardi. The complexity of relational query languages. pages 137–146, May 1982.Google Scholar
  71. [Vas79]
    Y. Vassiliou. Null values in data base management: A denotational semantics approach. pages 162–169, Boston, MA, 1979. ACM, New York.Google Scholar
  72. [vEK76]
    M.H. van Emden and R.A. Kowalski. The Semantics of Predicate Logic as a Programming Language. J.ACM, 23(4):733–742, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [VRS88]
    A. Van Gelder, K. Ross, and J.S. Schlipf. Unfounded Sets and Well-founded Semantics for General Logic Programs. In Proc. 7th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 221–230, 1988.Google Scholar
  74. [YC89]
    L. Y. Yuan and D.-A. Chiang. A sound and complete query evaluation algorithm for relational databases with disjunctive information. In Proc. of the Eighth Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 66–74. ACM Press, Mar. 1989.Google Scholar
  75. [YH85]
    A. Yahya and L.J. Henschen. Deduction in Non-Horn Databases. J. Automated Reasoning, 1(2):141–160, 1985.Google Scholar
  76. [Zan84]
    C. Zaniolo. Database relations with null values. J. Comp. Sys, Sci., 28:142–166, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • José Alberto Fernández
    • 1
  • Jack Minker
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege Park

Personalised recommendations