Advertisement

A Unifying Semantics for Active Databases Using Non-Markovian Theories of Actions

  • Iluju Kiringa
  • Ray Reiter
Conference paper
  • 305 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2921)

Abstract

Over the last fifteen years, database management systems (DBMSs) have been enhanced by the addition of rule-based programming to obtain active DBMSs. One of the greatest challenges in this area is to formally account for all the aspects of active behavior using a uniform formalism. In this paper, we formalize active relational databases within the framework of the situation calculus by uniformly accounting for them using theories embodying non-Markovian control in the situation calculus. We call these theories active relational theories and use them to capture the dynamics of active databases. Transaction processing and rule execution is modelled as a theorem proving task using active relational theories as background axioms. We show that major components of an ADBMS may be given a clear semantics using active relational theories.

Keywords

Coupling Mode Execution Model Active Rule Database Transaction Situation Calculus 
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.
    Baral, C., Lobo, J.: Formal characterizations of active databases. In: International Workshop on Logic in Databases, LIDS 1996 (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C., Lobo, J., Trajcevski, G.: Formal characterizations of active databases: Part ii. In: Proceedings of Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, DOOD 1997 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein, P.A., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency control and recovery in database systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertossi, L., Pinto, J., Valdivia, R.: Specifying database transactions and active rules in the situation calculus. In: Levesque, H., Pirri, F. (eds.) Logical Foundations of Cognitive Agents, Contributions in Honor of Ray Reiter, New-York, pp. 41–56. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic programming. Technical report, University of Toronto (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chrysanthis, P., Ramamritham, K.: Synthesis of extended transaction models. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 19(3), 450–491 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coupaye, T., Collet, C.: Denotational semantics for an active rule execution model. In: Sellis, T.K. (ed.) RIDS 1995. LNCS, vol. 985, pp. 36–50. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: Reasoning about concurrent execution, prioritized interrupts, and exogeneous actions in the situation calculus. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1221–1226 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fernandes, A.A.A., Williams, M.H., Paton, N.W.: A logic-based integration of active and deductive databases. New Generation Computing 15(2), 205–244 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fraternali, P., Tanca, L.: A structured approach to the definition of the semantics of active databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 20, 414–471 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabaldon, A.: Non-markovian control in the situation calculus. In: Lakemeyer, G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second International Cognitive Robotics Workshop, Berlin, pp. 28–33 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gray, J., Reuter, A.: Transaction Processing: Concepts and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guessoum, A., Lloyd, J.W.: Updating knowledge bases. New Generation Computing 8(1), 71–89 (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hsu, M., Ladin, R., McCarthy, R.: An execution model for active database management systems. In: Proceedings of the third International Conference on Data and Knowledge Bases, pp. 171–179. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiringa, I.: Towards a theory of advanced transaction models in the situation calculus (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the VLDB 8th International Workshop on Knowledge Representation Meets Databases, KRDB 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kiringa, I.: Logical Foundations of Active Databases. PhD thesis, Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kulkarni, K., Mattos, N., Cochrane, R.: Active database features in sql-3. In: Paton, N. (ed.) Active Rules in Database Systems, pp. 197–219. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Levesque, H., Reiter, R., Lespérance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.B.: Golog: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. J. of Logic Programming, Special Issue on Actions 31(1-3), 59–83 (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ludäscher, B., Hamann, U., Lausen, G.: A logical framework for active rules. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Management of Data, Pune. Tata and McGraw-Hill (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lynch, N., Merritt, M.M., Weihl, W., Fekete, A.: Atomic Transactions. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCarthy, J.: Situations, actions and causal laws. Technical report, Stanford University (1963)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4, 463–502 (1969)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moss, J.: Nested Transactions: An Approach to Reliable Distributed Computing. Information Systems Series. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Picouet, P., Vianu, V.: Expressiveness and complexity active databases. In: Afrati, F.N., Kolaitis, P.G. (eds.) ICDT 1997. LNCS, vol. 1186. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pirri, F., Reiter, R.: Some contributions to the metatheory of the situation calculus. J. ACM 46(3), 325–364 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reiter, R.: Towards a logical reconstruction of relational database theory. In: Brodie, M., Mylopoulos, J., Schmidt, J. (eds.) On Conceptual Modelling, New-York, pp. 163–189. Springer, Heidelberg (1984)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reiter, R.: On specifying database updates. J. of Logic Programming 25, 25–91 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Describing and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Widom, J., Ceri, S.: Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zaniolo, C.: Active database rules with transaction-conscious stable-model semantics. In: Ling, T.W., Mendelzon, A.O. (eds.) Fourth International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, Berlin, pp. 55–72. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iluju Kiringa
    • 1
  • Ray Reiter
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information Technology and EngineeringUniversity of Ottawa 
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Toronto 

Personalised recommendations