Advertisement

How Dirty Is Your Relational Database? An Axiomatic Approach

  • Maria Vanina Martinez
  • Andrea Pugliese
  • Gerardo I. Simari
  • V. S. Subrahmanian
  • Henri Prade
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4724)

Abstract

There has been a significant amount of interest in recent years on how to reason about inconsistent knowledge bases. However, with the exception of three papers by Lozinskii, Hunter and Konieczny and by Grant and Hunter, there has been almost no work on characterizing the degree of dirtiness of a database. One can conceive of many reasonable ways of characterizing how dirty a database is. Rather than choose one of many possible measures, we present a set of axioms that any dirtiness measure must satisfy. We then present several plausible candidate dirtiness measures from the literature (including those of Hunter-Konieczny and Grant-Hunter) and identify which of these satisfy our axioms and which do not. Moreover, we define a new dirtiness measure which satisfies all of our axioms.

Keywords

Relational Database Functional Dependency Integrity Constraint Axiomatic Approach Reliable Attribute 
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. 1.
    Lozinskii, E.L.: Resolving contradictions: A plausible semantics for inconsistent systems. J.of Automated Reasoning 12(1), 1–31 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Approaches to measuring inconsistent information. In: InconsistencyTolerance, pp. 191–236 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 159–184 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ullman, J.: Principles of Data Base and Knowledge Base Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., Subrahmanian, V.: Combining knowledge bases consistingof first order theories. Computational Intelligence (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bosc, P., Dubois, D., Pivert, O., Prade, H., de Calmes, M.: Fuzzy summarization of data usingfuzzy cardinalities. In: International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems, pp. 1553–1559 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    da Costa, N.: On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of FormalLogic 15(4), 497–510 (1974)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belnap, N.: A useful four valued logic. In: Epstein, G., Dunn, M. (eds.) Modern Uses of Many Valued Logic, pp. 8–37 (1977)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grant, J.: Classifications for inconsistent theories. Notre Dame Journal of FormalLogic 19(3), 435–444 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence (1980)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Touretzky, D.: The mathematics of inheritance systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jermyn, P., Dixon, M., Read, B.J.: Preparing clean views of data for data mining. In: ERCIM Workshop on Database Research, pp. 1–15 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schallehn, E., Sattler, K.: Using Similarity-based Operations for Resolving Data-level Conflicts. In: James, A., Younas, M., Lings, B. (eds.) BNCOD 2003, vol. 2712, pp. 172–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In: ICDT, pp. 1–17 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bohannon, P., Fan, W., Flaster, M., Rastogi, R.: A cost-based model and effective heuristicfor repairing constraints by value modification. In: SIGMOD, pp. 143–154 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Vanina Martinez
    • 1
  • Andrea Pugliese
    • 2
  • Gerardo I. Simari
    • 1
  • V. S. Subrahmanian
    • 1
  • Henri Prade
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.University of CalabriaRendeItaly
  3. 3.IRITToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations