Skip to main content

How Dirty Is Your Relational Database? An Axiomatic Approach

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4724))

Abstract

There has been a significant amount of interest in recent years on how to reason about inconsistent knowledge bases. However, with the exception of three papers by Lozinskii, Hunter and Konieczny and by Grant and Hunter, there has been almost no work on characterizing the degree of dirtiness of a database. One can conceive of many reasonable ways of characterizing how dirty a database is. Rather than choose one of many possible measures, we present a set of axioms that any dirtiness measure must satisfy. We then present several plausible candidate dirtiness measures from the literature (including those of Hunter-Konieczny and Grant-Hunter) and identify which of these satisfy our axioms and which do not. Moreover, we define a new dirtiness measure which satisfies all of our axioms.

Funded in part by grant N6133906C0149, ARO grant DAAD190310202, AFOSR grants FA95500610405 and FA95500510298, and NSF grant 0540216.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Lozinskii, E.L.: Resolving contradictions: A plausible semantics for inconsistent systems. J.of Automated Reasoning 12(1), 1–31 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Approaches to measuring inconsistent information. In: InconsistencyTolerance, pp. 191–236 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 27(2), 159–184 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ullman, J.: Principles of Data Base and Knowledge Base Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., Subrahmanian, V.: Combining knowledge bases consistingof first order theories. Computational Intelligence (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bosc, P., Dubois, D., Pivert, O., Prade, H., de Calmes, M.: Fuzzy summarization of data usingfuzzy cardinalities. In: International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-based Systems, pp. 1553–1559 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  7. da Costa, N.: On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of FormalLogic 15(4), 497–510 (1974)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Belnap, N.: A useful four valued logic. In: Epstein, G., Dunn, M. (eds.) Modern Uses of Many Valued Logic, pp. 8–37 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grant, J.: Classifications for inconsistent theories. Notre Dame Journal of FormalLogic 19(3), 435–444 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Touretzky, D.: The mathematics of inheritance systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1986)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34(1-3), 197–215 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Jermyn, P., Dixon, M., Read, B.J.: Preparing clean views of data for data mining. In: ERCIM Workshop on Database Research, pp. 1–15 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schallehn, E., Sattler, K.: Using Similarity-based Operations for Resolving Data-level Conflicts. In: James, A., Younas, M., Lings, B. (eds.) BNCOD 2003, vol. 2712, pp. 172–189. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In: ICDT, pp. 1–17 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bohannon, P., Fan, W., Flaster, M., Rastogi, R.: A cost-based model and effective heuristicfor repairing constraints by value modification. In: SIGMOD, pp. 143–154 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Martinez, M.V., Pugliese, A., Simari, G.I., Subrahmanian, V.S., Prade, H. (2007). How Dirty Is Your Relational Database? An Axiomatic Approach. In: Mellouli, K. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4724. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75256-1_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75255-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75256-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics