The reuse and modification of rulebases by predicate substitution

  • Anthony J. Bonner
  • Tomasz Imielinski
Session II: Rules
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 416)


We propose a method for reusing and modifying a deductive database. The need for such techniques occurs when new rulebased applications differ only slightly from existing ones or when an application is to be incrementally updated. Such techniques are particularly important when reprogramming is expensive or unreliable. In order to facilitate reuse we extend deductive database systems by the concept of predicate substitution. In this way, during query evaluation, not only variables, but also predicates can be substituted. Substitution increases the expressive power of Datalog. Not only does data complexity increase from PTIME to EXPTIME, but substitution also allows large sets of Datalog rules to be succinctly expressed. The paper provides a proof and model theory for this language, including a fixpoint semantics.


Minimal Model Expressive Power Atomic Formula Predicate Symbol Input Line 
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]
    K.R. Apt and M.H. Van Emden. Contributions to the Theory of Logic Programming. Journal of the ACM, 29(3):841–862, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    C. Beeri, S. Naqvi, and R. Ramakrishnan. Sets and negation in a logic database language (LDL). In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems (PODS), San Diego, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Chomicki and T. Imielinski. Relational specification of infinite query answers. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), Portland, Oregon, May 1989.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    G.M. Kuper. Logic programming with sets. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on the Principles of Database Systems (PODS), San Diego, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L.T. McCarty and N.S. Sridharan. The Representation of an Evolving System of Legal Concepts. II. prototypes and deformations. In Proceedings of the Seventh IJCAI, pages 246–253, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Tarski. A Lattice-Theoretical Fixpoint Theorem and its Applications. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 5:285–309, 1955.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Tsur and C. Zaniolo. LDL: A logic-based data-language. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Databases (VLDB), Kyoto, Japan, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M.H. Van Emden and R.A. Kowalski. The Semantics of Predicate Logic as a Programming Language. Journal of the ACM, 23(4):733–742, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony J. Bonner
    • 1
  • Tomasz Imielinski
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUnited States

Personalised recommendations