Advertisement

Checking Violation Tolerance of Approaches to Database Integrity

  • Hendrik Decker
  • Davide Martinenghi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4243)

Abstract

A hitherto unquestioned assumption made by all methods for integrity checking has been that the database satisfies its constraints before each update. This consistency assumption has been exploited for improving the efficiency of determining whether integrity is satisfied or violated after the update. Based on a notion of violation tolerance, we present and discuss an abstract property which, for any given approach to integrity checking, is an easy, sufficient condition to check whether the consistency assumption can be abandoned without sacrificing usability and efficiency of the approach. We demonstrate the usefulness of our definitions by showing that the theorem-proving approach to database integrity by Sadri and Kowalski, as well as several other well-known methods, can indeed afford to abandon the consistency assumption without losing their efficiency, while their applicability is vastly increased.

Keywords

Integrity Constraint Paraconsistent Logic Deductive Database Integrity Check Database Integrity 
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.
    Bertossi, L.: Consistent Query Answering in Databases. ACM SIGMOD Record 35(2), 68–77 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, C.-L., Lee, R.: Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. In: Computer Science Classics. Academic Press, London (1973)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christiansen, H., Martinenghi, D.: On Simplification of Database Integrity Constraints. In: Pettorossi, A., Proietti, M. (eds.) Fundamenta Informaticae, vol. 71(4), pp. 371–417. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006) See also [13]Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Decker, H.: Integrity Enforcement on Deductive Databases. In: Kerschberg, L. (ed.) Expert Database Systems, EDS 1986, pp. 381–395. Benjamin/Cummings (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Decker, H.: Historical and Computational Aspects of Paraconsistency in View of the Logic Foundation of Databases. In: Bertossi, L., Katona, G.O.H., Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) Semantics in Databases. LNCS, vol. 2582, pp. 63–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Decker, H.: A Case for Paraconsistent Logic as Foundation of Future Information Systems. In: Proc. CAiSE 2005 Workshops, vol. 2, pp. 451–461. FEUP edi coes (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Decker, H.: Total Unbiased Multivalued Paraconsistent Semantics of Database Integrity. In: DEXA Workshop LAAIC 2005, pp. 813–817. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decker, H., Villadsen, J., Waragai, T. (eds.): Paraconsistent Computational Logic. In: Proc. ICLP Workshop at FLoC 2002, Dat. Skrifter, Roskilde Univ., vol. 95 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kakas, A., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abductive Logic Programming. J. Logic and Computation 2(6), 719–770 (1992)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kowalski, R.A.: Logic for Problem Solving. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1979)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kowalski, R.A., Sadri, F., Soper, P.: Integrity Checking in Deductive Databases. In: Proc. 13th VLDB, pp. 61–69. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lloyd, J.W., Sonenberg, L., Topor, R.W.: Integrity constraint checking in stratified databases. Journal of Logic Programming 4(4), 331–343 (1987)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martinenghi, D.: Advanced Techniques for Efficient Data Integrity Checking. Ph.D thesis, Roskilde University, Denmark, in Datalogiske Skrifter, vol. 105 (2005), http://www.ruc.dk/dat/forskning/skrifter/DS105.pdf
  14. 14.
    Martinenghi, D., Chtistiansen, H., Decker, H.: Integrity Checking and Maintenance in Relational and Deductive Databases, and beyond. In: Ma, Z. (ed.) Intelligent Databases: Technologies and Applications. Idea Group Publishing (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicolas, J.-M.: Logic for Improving Integrity Checking in Relational Data Bases. Acta Informatica 18, 227–253 (1982)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.A.: A Theorem-Proving Approach to Database Integrity. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 313–362. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1988)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Widom, J., Ceri, S.: Active Database Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hendrik Decker
    • 1
  • Davide Martinenghi
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto Tecnológico de InformáticaCiudad Politécnica de la InnovaciónValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen/BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations