The PARK semantics for active rules

  • Georg Gottlob
  • Guido Moerkotte
  • V. S. Subrahmanian
Active Databases
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1057)


Active databases are an important topic of current database research. However, the semantics of the underlying mechanism, event-condition-action rules (or ECA rules for short), is unclear so far. In order to define a clear semantics for sets of active rules, we first derive the requirements such a semantics must fulfill. Since currently no semantics fulfills these requirements, we continue with the definition of the PARK semantics adhering to all requirements. The PARK semantics is a smooth integration of inflationary fixpoint semantics [7] with conflict resolution. Through this approach, the PARK semantics is powerful enough to deal with recursive active rules. Furthermore, the actual conflict resolution strategy is a parameter of the PARK semantics. This guarantees a wide range of applicability.


Conflict Resolution Rule Priority Active Rule Ground Atom Database Instance 
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. 1.
    A. Buchmann. Active object systems. In A. Dogac, M. Özsu, A. Biliris, and T. Sellis, editors, Advances in Object-Oriented Database Systems, pages 201–224, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U. Dayal, E. Hanson, and J. Widom. Active database systems. In W. Kim, editor, Modern Database Systems, pages 434–456. Addison Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Fraternelli and L. Tanca. A toolkit for the design of active database semantics. Rapporto Interno 93-078, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Fraternelli and L. Tanca. A structured approach for the definition of the semantics of active databases. Rapporto Interno 95-028, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, 1995. To appear in Trans. on Database Systems.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Van Gelder, K. Ross, and J. S. Schlipf. The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of the ACM, 38(3):620–650, July 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Hanson. Rule condition testing and action execution in ariel. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, pages 49–58, San Diego, CA, Jun. 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Kolaitis and C. Papadimitriou. Why not negation by fixpoint? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43:125–144, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.M. Kotz. Trigger Mechanisms for Maintaining Design Data Consistency in Database Systems. PhD thesis, Univ. of Karlsruhe, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Revision Programming, Database Updates, and Integrity Constraints. In Int. Conf. on Database Theory, pages 368–382, Prague, Jan. 1995. Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Olive. On the design and implementation of information systems from deductive databases. In Proc. Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 3–11, 1989.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ph. Picouet, V. Vianu. Semantics and Expressiveness Issues in Active Databases. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 126–138, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Stonebraker, A. Jhingran, J. Goh, and S. Potamianos. On rules, procedures, caching and views in data base systems. In Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 281–290, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Widom and S. Finkelstein. Set-oriented production rules in relational databases. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Conf. on Management of Data, pages 259–270, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Zaniolo. On the unification of active databases and deductive databases. In Rules in Database Systems, (N. Paton, ed.), Springer Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Gottlob
    • 1
  • Guido Moerkotte
    • 2
  • V. S. Subrahmanian
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für Informationssysteme, Lehrstuhl für Informatik IIITechnische Universität WienWienAustria
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für Informatik IIIRWTH-AachenAachenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations