Minimizing indefinite information in disjunctive deductive databases

  • Monica D. Barback
  • Jorge Lobo
  • James J. Lu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 646)

Abstract

A natural way to formalize certain incomplete information in databases is through the use of disjunctions, for example A ∨ B. Typically, the meaning of such indefinite information is based on the classical interpretation of the connective ∨, We argue in this paper that this treatment is not strong enough for dealing with a large class of indefinite information. Instead, we propose an intuitively more meaningful definition in which asserting a disjunction also invaliudates any subsumed disjunction, hence exhibiting a non-monotonic behavior. First, we examine a class of databases that can be stratified in a way similar to [1]. For this class of databases, we derive a meaning that coincides with the above motivation. Next, we present an algorithm for transforming an arbitrary database P to a set of stratifiable databases from which the meaning of P is obtained. It turns out that computing answers under this semantics can be done in polynomial time.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K.R. Apt, H.A. Blair, A. Walker, Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge, in: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (J. Minker ed.), 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Baral, J. Lobo, and J. Minker, Generalized Disjunctive Well-founded Semantics for Logic Programs, Technical Report, University of Maryland, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Imielinski, K. Vadaparty, Complexity of Query Processing in Databases with OR-Objects, in: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Databases Systems, 51–65, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Gottlob, R. Zicari, Closed World Databases Opened Through Null Values, in: Proceedings of the 14th VLDB, 50–61, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Imielinski, Incomplete Deductive Databases, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial4 Intelligence, 3(2–4), 259–293, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Liu, Null Values in Definite Programs, in: Proceedings of The North American Conference on Logic Programming, 273–288, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. T.
    J.W. Lloyd, Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Minker, On Indefinite Databases and the Closed World Assumption, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automated Deduction, LNCS 138, Springer, 292–308, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Minker, A. Rajasekar, A Fixpoint Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs, in: Journal of Logic Programming, 9, 45–74, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T.C. Przymusinski, Stationary Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs and Deductive Databases, Logic Programming: Proceedings of the 1990 North American Conference, (S. Debray and M. Hermenegildo eds.), 40–59.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Read, Relevant Logic, Basil Blackwell, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K.A. Ross, R.W. Topor, Inferring Negative Information from Disjunctive Databases, in: Journal of Automated Reasoning, 4, 397–424, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M.H. van Emden and R.A. Kowalski, The Semantics of Predicate Logic as a Programming Language, JACM, 23(4), T23–742, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Van Gelder, K. Ross, J.S. Schlipf, The Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs in: JACM, 38(3), 620–650, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. Zaniolo, Database Relations with Null Values, in: Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 28, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica D. Barback
    • 1
  • Jorge Lobo
    • 2
  • James J. Lu
    • 3
  1. 1.Northwestern UniversityEvanston
  2. 2.University of Illinois ChicagoChicago
  3. 3.Bucknell UniversityLewisburg

Personalised recommendations