Preferred Generalized Answers for Inconsistent Databases

  • L. Caroprese
  • S. Greco
  • I. Trubitsyna
  • E. Zumpano
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4203)


The aim of this paper consists in investigating the problem of managing inconsistent databases, i.e. databases violating integrity constraints. A flurry of research on this topic has shown that the presence of inconsistent data can be resolved by “repairing” the database, i.e. by providing a computational mechanism that ensures obtaining consistent “scenarios” of the information or by consistently answer to queries posed on an inconsistent set of data. This paper considers preferences among repairs and possible answers by introducing a partial order among them on the basis of some preference criteria. Moreover, the paper also extends the notion of preferred consistent answer by extracting from a set of preferred repaired database, the maximal consistent overlapping portion of the information, i.e. the information supported by each preferred repaired database.


Integrity Constraint Ground Atom Preference Criterion Consistent Answer Minimal Generalization 
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.
    Argaval, S., Keller, A.M., Wiederhold, G., Saraswat, K.: Flexible Relation: an Approach for Integrating Data from Multiple, Possibly Inconsistent Databases. In: ICDE, pp. 495–504 (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query Answers in inconsistent databases. In: PODS, pp. 68–79 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Specifying and Querying Database repairs using Logic Programs with Exceptions. In: FQAS, pp. 27–01 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J.: Combining Multiple Knowledge Bases. TKDE 3(2), 208–220 (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bry, F.: Query Answering in Information System with Integrity Constraints. In: IICIS, pp. 113–130 (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dung, P.M.: Integrating Data from Possibly Inconsistent Databases. In: CoopIS, pp. 58–65 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greco, G., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: A logic programming approach to the integration, repairing and querying of inconsistent databases. In: ICLP, pp. 348–364 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greco, S., Sirangelo, C., Trubitsyna, I., Zumpano, E.: Preferred Repairs for Inconsistent Databases. In: IDEAS, pp. 202–211 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grant, J., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Reasoning in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. TKDE 7(1), 177–189 (1995)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lin, J.: A Semantics for Reasoning Consistently in the Presence of Inconsistency. AI 86(1-2), 75–95 (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Subrahmanian, V.S.: Amalgamating Knowledge Bases. ACM TODS 19(2), 291–331 (1994)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ullman, J.K.: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, vol. 1. Computer Science Press (1988)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wijsen, J.: Condensed representation of database repairs for consistent query answering. In: Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., Motwani, R. (eds.) ICDT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2572, pp. 378–393. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yan, L.L., Ozsu, M.T.: Conflict Tolerant Queries in Aurora. In: CoopIS, pp. 279–290 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Caroprese
    • 1
  • S. Greco
    • 1
  • I. Trubitsyna
    • 1
  • E. Zumpano
    • 1
  1. 1.DEISUniv. della CalabriaRendeItaly

Personalised recommendations