Compromised updates in labelled databases

  • Fátima C. C. Dargam
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1138)


This paper presents a logical system, CIULDS, as a labelled realization to our approach of Compromising Interfering Updates. The approach proposes a method for handling logically conflicting inputs into knowledge bases, via restricting their consequences. The main idea is to update the database with as many consistent consequences of the inputs as possible, in the case that the inputs themselves are not allowed to be kept in it. And in the case that a revision applies, the idea is to keep as many as possible of the consistent consequences of the retracted sentences as a compromise. 1 The reconciliation of conflicting inputs follows some specified postulates for compromised revision.

CIULDS is based on the Labelled Deductive Systems framework (LDS). In CIULDS we take advantage of LDS's labelling facility, to control the derivation process of the compromised consequences. We embed in the labelling propagation conditions, which act on the inference rules, part of the control mechanism for the compromised approach. This mechanism helps the update operations to perform the reconciliation of conflicting inputs. The update operations invoke a specific revision method, which applies some compromising criteria for achieving the revised labelled database, whenever conflicts arise.

In this paper, we present briefly our main motivations and we introduce the specification of our approach, for the case of database updates. We present CIULDS, by decribing informally its main features and definitions. Finally, we summarize the system's main properties.


Inference Rule Consistent Consequence Belief Revision Integrity Constraint Deductive Database 
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.
    Alchourrón, C., Makinson, D.: The Logic of Theory Change: Contraction functions and their associated functions. Theoria. 48 (1982).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alchourrón, C., Makinson, D.: On the Logic of Theory Change: Safe Contractions. Studia Logica. 44 (1985).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alchourrón, C., Makinson, D.: Maps between some different kinds of contractions functions. Studia Logica. 45 (1986).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the Logic of Theory Change: partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic. 50 (1985).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boutilier, C., Goldszmidt, M.: Revision by Conditionals Beliefs. Proc. AAAI Conference. (1993).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cholvy, L.: Proving Theorems in a Multi-Source Environment. Proc. IJCAI-93, Chambery. Vol.1 (1993) 66–71.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dargam, F.C.C.: Compromised Updates in Deductive Databases. Research Report, Imperial College, UK. (1996).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dargam, F.C.C.: On Compromising Updates in Labelled Databases. Imperial College-Department of Computing Research Report DoC-96/2. (1996).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dargam, F.C.C.: A Compromised Characterization to Belief Revision. Imperial College-Department of Computing Research Report DoC-96/1. (1996).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dargam, F.C.C.: On Reconciling Conflicting Updates: A Compromised Revision Approach. PhD. Thesis. Department of Computing, Imperial College, UK. (1996-to appear).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dargam, F.C.C., Gabbay, D.M.: Resolving Conflicting Actions and Updates. (extended abstract). Proc. Compulog Net Meeting on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning CNKRR'93. Lisbon. (1993).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Doyle, J.: A Truth Maintenance System. Artificial Intelligence. 12 (1979) 231–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elkan, C.: A Rational Reconstruction of Non-monotonic Truth Maintenance Systems. Artificial Intelligence. 43(2) (1990) 219–234.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freund, M., Lehmann, D.: Belief Revision and Rational Inference. Technical Report TR94-1. Institute of Computer Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Israel (1994).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gabbay, D.M.: LDS — Labelled Deductive Systems — Volume I Foundations. (Intermediate draft of a forthcoming book by Oxford University Press). MPI-I-94-223. Max-Planck-Institut fur Informatik. Saarbrucken, Germany.(1994).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabbay, D.M., Hunter, A.: Making Inconsistency Respectable — Part 1: A Logical Framework for Inconsistency in Reasoning. Fundamentals of AI Research. Springer-Verlag, LNCS 535 (1991).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gabbay, D.M., Hunter, A.: Making Inconsistency Respectable — Part 2: Meta-level handling of inconsistency. Springer-Verlag, LNCS 747 (1993).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galliers, J.: The Positive Role of Conflict in Cooperative Multiagent Systems. Decentralized AI. Demazeau, Y., Muller, J.P., eds. North-Holland. (1990) 33–46.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giordano, L., Martelli, A.: An Abductive Characterization of the TMS. Springer-Verlag, LNAI 515. Proc. TMS ECAI-90. Martins, J.P., Reinfrank, M., eds. (1990).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jackson,P., Pais, J.: Semantic Accounts of Belief Revision. Springer-Verlag, LNAI 515. Proc. TMS ECAI-90. Martins, J.P., Reinfrank, M., eds. (1990).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising it. Belief Revision. Gärdenfors, P., editor. Cambridge University Press. (1992) 183–203.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kleer, J.d.: An Assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence. 28 (1986) 127–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Makinson, D.: How to give it up. Synthese. 62 (1985).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Makinson, D.: Five Faces of Minimality. Studia Logica. 53(3) (1993).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monteiro, D., Bertino, E., Martelli, M.: Transactions and Updates in Deductive Databases. Imperial College-Department of Computing Research Report DoC-95/2. (1995).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nebel, B.: A Knowledge level Analysis of Belief Revision. Proc. 1st. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. (1989).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nebel, B.: Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems. Chapter 6-Belief Revision. Springer-Verlag, LNAI 422 (1990).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A Truth Maintenance System Based on Stable Models. Pimentel, S. G., Cuadrado, J. L.: Proc. North American Conference on Logic Programming NACLP. Cleveland, USA. (1989) 274–290.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rao, A., Foo, N.: Minimal Change and Maximal Coherence: A Basis for Belief Revision and Reasoning about Actions. Proc. 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. (1989) 966–971.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rodi, W., Pimentel, S.: A Nonmonotonic Assumption-Based TMS using Stable Bases. Proc. KR'91. (1991) 485–495.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rott, H.: Two Methods of Constructing Contractions and Revisions of Knowledge Systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 20 (1991).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rott, H.: On the Logic of Theory Change: more maps between different kinds of contractions functions. Belief Revision. Gärdenfors, P., editor. Cambridge University Press. (1992) 122–141.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sripada, S.: A Temporal Approach to Belief Revision in Knowledge Bases. Proc. 9th. IEEE Conference on AI for Applications CAIA-93. Florida, USA. (1993).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wagner, G.: Vivid Logic. Springer Verlag, LNAI 764 (1994).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang, X., Chen, H.: On the Semantics of TMS. Proc. IJCAI '91. (1991) 306–309.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge University Press. (1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fátima C. C. Dargam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College of Science, Technology and MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations