Journal of Intelligent Information Systems

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 41–94 | Cite as

The ramification problem in temporal databases: an approach with conflicting constraints

  • Nikos Papadakis
  • Dimitris Plexousakis
  • Myron Papadakis
  • Harris Manifavas


In this paper we study the ramification problem in the setting of temporal databases. Standard solutions from the literature on reasoning about action are inadequate because they rely on the assumption that fluents persist, and because actions have effects on the next situation only. In this paper we provide a solution to the ramification problem based on an extension of the situation calculus and the work of McCain and Turner. More specifically, we study the case where there are conflicting effects of an action, a particularly complex problem. Also we present a tool which implements the proposed solution.


Intelligence databases Temporal databases Active and dynamic systems Knowledge representation and reasoning 


  1. Denecker, M., & Ternovska, E. (2007). Inductive situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence Archive, 171(5–6), 332–360.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Drescher, C., & Thielscher, M. (2007). Integrating action calculi and description logics. In KI 2007: Advances in artificial intelligence (pp. 68–83).Google Scholar
  3. Giordano1, L., Martellib, A., & Schwindc, C. (2005). Specialization of interaction protocols in a temporal action logic. In LCMAS 2005 (pp. 3–22).Google Scholar
  4. Elkan, C. (1992). Reasoning about action in first order logic. In Proceedings of the conference of the Canadian Society for Comptutational Studies in Intelligence (CSCSI) (pp. 221–227). Vancouver.Google Scholar
  5. Ginsberg, M., & Smith, D. (1988). Reasoning about action I: A possible worlds approach. Artificial Intelligence, 35, 165–195.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Fusaoka, A. (1996). Situation calculus on a dense flow of time. In Proceedings of AAAI-96 (pp. 633–638).Google Scholar
  7. Gustafsson, J. (1998). Extending temporal action logic for ramification and concurrency. Thesis no. 719, Linking Studies and Technology.Google Scholar
  8. Gustafsson, J., & Doherty, P. (1996). Embracing occlusion in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In KR’96.Google Scholar
  9. Kakas, A., & Miller, R. (1997). A simple declarative language for describing narratives with actions. The Journal of Logic Programming (Elsevier), 31(1–3), 157–200. Special issue on reasoning about action and change.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Kakas, A. C., Miller, R. S., & Toni, F. (2001). E-RES: Reasoning about actions, events and observations. In Proceedings of LPNMR2001 (pp. 254–266). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Kowalski, R. A. (1992). Database updates in the event calculus. Journal of Logic Programming, 12(1–2), 121–146.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Lifshitz, V. (1990). Frames in the space of situations. Artificial Intelligence, 46, 365–376.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Lifshitz, V. (1991a). Towards a metatheory of action. In J. F. Allen, R. Fikes, & E. Sandewall (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 376-386). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  14. Lifschitz, V. (1991b). Towards a metatheory of action. In Proceedings of KR’91, Cambridge, MA (pp. 376–386).Google Scholar
  15. Marakakis, E., Vassilakis, K., Kalivianakis, E., & Micheloyiannis, S. (2005). An expert system for epilepsy with uncertainty. In AIML 05 conference, 19–21 December 2005, CICC (pp. 72–78). Cairo, Egypt.Google Scholar
  16. Marakakis, E., Vassilakis, K., Kalivianakis, E., & Micheloyiannis, S. (2006). An expert system for epilepsy with uncertainty, Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, ISSN: 1687-4846.
  17. McCain, N., & Turner, H. (1995). A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In Proceedings of IJCAI-95 (pp. 1978–1984). Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  18. McCain, N., & Turner, H. (1997). Causal theories of action and change. In Proceedings nat’l conf. on artificial intelligence (AAAI’97) (pp. 460–465).Google Scholar
  19. McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philophical problem from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer, & D. Mitchie (Eds.), Machine intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 463–502). New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, R., & Shanahan, M. (1999). The event calculus in classical logic—Alternative axiomatisations. Linkping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science, 4(16), 1–27.Google Scholar
  21. Papadakis, N., & Plexousakis, D. (2001). Action theories in temporal databases. In Proceedings of the 8th Panhellenic conference on informatics (pp. 254–264). Cyprus.Google Scholar
  22. Papadakis, N., & Plexousakis, D. (2002a). The ramification and qualification problems in temporal databases. In Proceedings of the 2nd Hellenic conference on AI, 10–11 April 2002. Lecture notes on artificial intelligent (Vol. 2308, pp. 18–30). Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
  23. Papadakis, N., & Plexousakis, D. (2002b). Action with duration and constraints: The ramification problem in temporal databases. In 14th IEEE ICTAI. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Papadakis, N., & Plexousakis, D. (2003). Action with duration and constraints: The ramification problem in temporal databases. International Journal of Artificial Intelligent Tools (IJTAI), 12(3), 315–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Papadakis, N., Antoniou, G., & Plexousakis, D. (2007). The ramification problem in temporal databases: Concurrent execution with conflicting constraints. In 19th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligent (pp. 274–278). Patra, Greece.Google Scholar
  26. Pearl, J. (1988). Embracing causality in default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 35(2), 259–271.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Pearl, J. (1996). Causation, action and counterfacturals. In Proceeding of the sixth conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge.Google Scholar
  28. Pinto, J. (1994). Temporal reasoning in the situation calculus. Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto.Google Scholar
  29. Pinto, J., & Reiter, R. (1993). Temporal reasoning in logic programming: A case for the situation calculus. In Proceedings of 10th int. conf. on logic programming, 21–24 June 1993. Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
  30. Plexousakis, D., & Mylopoulos, J. (1996). Accomodating integrity constraints during database design. In Proceedings of EDBT 1996 (pp. 497–513). Avignon, France.Google Scholar
  31. Reiter, R. (1996). Natural actions, concurrency and continous time in the situation calculus, KR 96 (pp. 2–13).Google Scholar
  32. Reiter, R. (2001). Knowledge in action: Logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Thielscher, M. (1988). Reasoning about actions: Steady versus stabilizing state constraints. Artifical Intelligence, 104, 339–355.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. Thielscher, M. (1997). Ramification and causality. Artifical Intelligence, 89(1–2), 317–364.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Winslett, M. (1988). Reasoning about action using a possible models approach. In Proceedings of AAAI-88 (pp. 89–93). Saint Paul, MN.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikos Papadakis
    • 1
  • Dimitris Plexousakis
    • 2
  • Myron Papadakis
    • 2
  • Harris Manifavas
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SciencesTechnological Education Institute of CreteCreteGreece
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of CreteCreteGreece
  3. 3.Department of Applied Informatics and MultimediaTechnological Education Institute of CreteCreteGreece

Personalised recommendations