On conservative enforced updates

  • Michael Dekhtyar
  • Alexander Dikovsky
  • Nicolas Spyratos
Regular Papers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1265)


A new method is proposed of restoring integrity constraints after committing an external update of a data base. This method is conservative in the sense that it performs the minimum of the necessary changes in the initial data base. The method is based on a novel idea of a so called preference strategy, i.e. an “oracle” which resolves globally all the conflicts, taking into account the update to be committed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bidoit, N., Maabout, S.: Update Programs Versus Revision Programs. In: “Non-Monotonic Extensions of Logic Programming”. Proc. of the Workshop at the International Logic Programming Conference, JICSLP'96. (September 1996). (To appear in LNAI 1216)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dayal, U., Hanson,E., and Widom, J.: Active database systems. In: W. Kim, editor, Modern Database Systems. Addison Wesley (1995) 436–456Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the complexity of prepositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 57 (1992) 227–270Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fagin, R., Kuper, G., Ullman, J., and Vardi, M.Y.: Updating Logical Databases. In: P. Kanellakis, editor, Advances in Computing Research, JAI Press 3 (1986) 1–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable semantics for logic programs. In: R. Kovalsky and K. Bowen, editors, Proc. of the 5th Intern. Symp. on Logic Programming. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press (1988) 1070–1080Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halfeld Ferrari Alves, M., Laurent, D., Spyratos, N., Stamate, D.: Update rules and revision programs. Rapport de Recherche Université de Paris-Sud, Centre d'Orsay, LRI 1010 (12/1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karp, R.M.: Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In: R.E.Miller and J.W.Thatcher, editors, Complexity of Computer Computations. N.-Y., Plenum Press (1972) 85–103Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A. O.: Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change. Artificial Intelligence 52 (1991) 253–294Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marek, V.W., Truszcińsky, M.: Revision programming, database updates and integrity constraints. In: International Conference on Data Base theory, ICDT. LNCS 893 (1995) 368–382Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Picouet, Ph., Vianu, V.: Expressiveness and Complexity of Active Databases. In: Afrati, F., Kolaitis, Ph., editors, 6th Int. Conf. on Database Theory, ICDT'97. LNCS 1186 (1997) 155–172Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Przymusinski, T.C., Turner, H.: Update by Means of Inference Rules. In: V.W. Marek, A.Nerode, M.Truszczyński, editors, Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. LPNMR'95, Lexington, KY, USA (1995) 166–174Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raschid, L., Lobo, J.: Semantics for Update Rule Programs and Implementation in a Relational Database Management System. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 21 (December 1996) 526–571Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Gelder, A., Ross, K.A., and Schlipf, J.S.: The Well-Founded Semantics for General Logic Programs. Journal of the ACM 38 (1991) 620–650Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Dekhtyar
    • 1
  • Alexander Dikovsky
    • 2
  • Nicolas Spyratos
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of CSTver State Univ.TverRussia
  2. 2.Keldysh Institute for Applied Math.Russia
  3. 3.LRIUniversité de Paris-SudOrsay CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations