Declarative Semantics of Production Rules for Integrity Maintenance

  • Luciano Caroprese
  • Sergio Greco
  • Cristina Sirangelo
  • Ester Zumpano
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4079)


This paper presents a declarative semantics for the maintenance of integrity constraints expressed by means of production rules. A production rule is a special form of active rule, called active integrity constraint, whose body contains an integrity constraint (conjunction of literals which must be false) and whose head contains a disjunction of update atoms, i.e. actions to be performed if the corresponding constraint is not satisfied (i.e. is true). The paper introduces i) a formal declarative semantics allowing the computation of founded repairs, that is repairs whose actions are specified and supported by active integrity constraint, ii) an equivalent semantics obtained by rewriting production rules into disjunctive logic rules, so that repairs can be derived from the answer sets of the logic program and finally iii) a characterization of production rules allowing a methodology for integrity maintenance.


Logic Program Logic Programming Stable Model Integrity Constraint Ground Atom 
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.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A., Pereira, L.M., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.C.: Dynamic updates of non-monotonic knowledge bases. JLP 45(1-3), 43–70 (2000)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proc. PODS, pp. 68–79 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Specifying and querying database repairs using logic programs with exceptions. In: Proc. FQAS, pp. 27–41 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baral, C.: Embedding revision programs in logic programming situation calculus. Journal of Logic Programming 30(1), 83–97 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ceri, S., Widom, J.: Deriving Production Rules for Constraint Maintenance. In: VLDB, pp. 566–577 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chomicki, J., Lobo, J., Naqvi, S.A.: Conflict resolution using logic programming. IEEE TKDE 15(1), 244–249 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J.: Minimal-change integrity maintenance using tuple deletions. Information & Computation 197(1-2), 90–121 (2005)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Mannila, H.: Disjunctive datalog. ACM TODS 22(3), 364–418 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flesca, S., Greco, S.: Declarative semantics for active rules. TPLP 1(1), 43–69 (2001)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flesca, S., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: Active integrity constraints. In: PPDP, pp. 98–107 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proc. ICLPS, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New generation Computing 9(3/4), 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grant, J., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Reasoning in inconsistent knowledge bases. IEEE TKDE 7(1), 177–189 (1995)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: Querying inconsistent databases. In: Parigot, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2000. LNCS, vol. 1955, pp. 308–325. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Greco, G., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: A Logical Framework for Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Databases. IEEE TKDE 15(6), 1389–1408 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kifer, M., Li, A.: On the semantics of rule-based expert systems with uncertainty. In: Proc. ICDT, pp. 102–117 (1988)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin, J.: A semantics for reasoning consistently in the presence of inconsistency. Artificial Intelligence 86(1), 75–95 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marek, V.W., Pivkina, I., Truszczynski, M.: Revision programming = logic programming + integrity constraints. Computer Science Logic, 73–98 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marek, V.W., Truszczynski, M.: Revision programming. TCS 190(2), 241–277 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    May, W., Ludascher, B.: Understanding the Global Semantics of Referential Actions using Logic Rules. ACM TODS 27(4), 343–397 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paton, N.W., Diaz, O.: Active Database Systems. ACM Computing Surveys 31(1), 63–103 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Subrahmanian, V.S.: Amalgamating knowledge bases. ACM TKDE 19(2), 291–331 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ullman, J.K.: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems. Computer Science Press (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wijsen, J.: Condensed representation of database repairs for consistent query answering. In: ICDT, pp. 378–393 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciano Caroprese
    • 1
  • Sergio Greco
    • 1
  • Cristina Sirangelo
    • 1
  • Ester Zumpano
    • 1
  1. 1.DEIS, Univ. della CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations