A model theoretic approach to update rule programs

  • N. Bidoit
  • S. Maabout
Contributed Papers Session 3: Active Databases
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1186)

Abstract

Semantics of active rules is generally defined by execution models. The lack of a clean declarative semantics threats active system reliability. In this paper, a declarative semantics for update rules based on the well founded semantics of Datalog programs is investigated. The validation of our proposal proceeds by demonstrating it for static and transition integrity constraint enforcement.

Keywords

active databases update constraint well-founded semantics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ABW87]
    K. Apt, H. Blair, A. Walker. Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming. J. Minker Editor. Morgan Kauffman Publishers. 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [AHV95]
    S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley 1995Google Scholar
  3. [AHW95]
    A. Aiken, J. Hellerstein, J. Widom. Static Analysis Techniques for Predicting the Behavior of Active Database Rules. In ACM TODS 1995, 20(1): 3–41, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. [BCW93]
    M. Baudinet, J. Chomicki, P. Wolper. Temporal Deductive Databases. In Temporal Databases: Theory, Design and Implementation. Benjamin/Cummings 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [BF91]
    N. Bidoit, C. Froidevaux. General Logic Databases and Programs: Default Logic Semantics and Stratification. In Information and Computation. 91: 15–54, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [BH89]
    N. Bidoit, R. Hull. Minimalism, Justification and Non-Monotonicity in Deductive Databases. JCSS 38(2): 290.325. 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [BM96]
    N. Bidoit, S. Maabout. Update Rule Programs Related to Revision Programs. NMELP Workshop, in conjunction with JICSLP'96, Bonn, Germany. 1996Google Scholar
  8. [CFPT94]
    S. Ceri, P. Fraternali, S. Paraboshi, L. Tanca. Automatic Generation of Production Rules for Integrity Maintenance. In ACM TODS. 1994.Google Scholar
  9. [Fag91]
    F. Fages. A New Fixpoint Semantics for General Logic Programs Compared with the Well-Founded and the Stable Model Semantics. In New Generation Computing 9(4), 1991.Google Scholar
  10. [Fit85]
    M. Fitting. A Kripke-Kleene Semantics for Logic Programs. In Journal of Logic Programming. 2: 295–312. 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [FT95]
    P. Fraternali, L. Tanca. A Structured Approach for the Definition of the Semantics of Active Databases. In ACM TODS. 20(4):414–471. 1995.Google Scholar
  12. [GL88]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Semantics for Logic Programs. In 5th International Symposium on Logic Programming. MIT Press. 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [GMS96]
    G. Gottlob, G. Moerkotte, V.S. Subrahmanian. The PARK Semantics for Active Databases. In Proceedings of EDBT'96. Avignon, France, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [Ger94]
    M. Gertz. On Specifying the Reactive Behavior on Constraint Violations. Proceedings of RIDE 94. Houston, USA. 1994.Google Scholar
  15. [HLS95]
    M. Halfeld Ferrari Alves, D. Laurent, N. Spyratos. Update Rules in Datalog Programs. In Proceedings of LPNMR'95. LNAI 928. June 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [MT95]
    V. Marek and M. Truszczynski. Revision Programming, Database Updates and Integrity Constraints. In Proceedings of ICDT'95. Prague, January, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [PV95]
    P. Picouet, V. Vianu. Semantics and Expressiveness Issues in Active Databases. In Proceedings of PODS95. pp: 126–138. San Jose. 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [Ras94]
    L. Raschid. A Semantics for a Class of Stratified Production System Programs. In Journal of Logic Programming. Vol21, Numb 1, pp 31–57. August 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Rei80]
    R. Reiter. A Logic for Default Reasoning. In Artificial Intelligence. 1980.Google Scholar
  20. [S+95]
    A.P.J.M. Siebes, J.F.P van den Akker, M.H. van der Voort. (Un)decidability Results for Trigger Design Theories. Report CS-R9556 CWI. Amsterdam. 1995.Google Scholar
  21. [SK87]
    F. Sadri, R. Kowalski. A Theorem-Proving Approach to Database Integrity. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming. J. Minker Editor. Morgan Kauffman Publishers. 1987.Google Scholar
  22. [SSW94]
    K. Sagonas, T. Swift, D. S. Warren. XSB as an Efficient Deductive Database Engine. In Proceedings of ACM Sigmod Conference. 1994.Google Scholar
  23. [VRS91]
    A. van Gelder, K. A. Ross, J. S. Schlipf. The Well-founded Semantics for General Logic Programs. In Journal of the ACM. vol:38. 1991.Google Scholar
  24. [WC96]
    J. Widom, S. Ceri (eds). Active Databases: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing. Morgan-Kaufman, Inc. San Francisco, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. [Wid92]
    J. Widom. A Denotational Semantics for the Starburst Production Rule Language. SIGMOD Record, 21(3), September 1992.Google Scholar
  26. [Zan95]
    C. Zaniolo. Active Database Rules with Transaction-Conscious Stable-Model Semantics. In Proceedings of DOOD'95, LNCS: 1013. Singapore, December 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Bidoit
    • 1
  • S. Maabout
    • 1
  1. 1.LIPN. CNRS URA1507Université de Paris XIII. Institut GaliléeVilletaneuseFrance

Personalised recommendations