Advertisement

Toward a Uniform Cause-Based Approach to Inconsistency-Tolerant Database Semantics

  • Hendrik Decker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6427)

Abstract

Because of extant inconsistencies in the database, answers to queries may or may not be in accordance with the intended semantics of stored data, as encoded by integrity constraints. Also updates may or may not be in accordance with the integrity constraints. Approaches to query answering usually differ from approaches to check updates for integrity preservation, even more so if they have to cope with extant inconsistencies. We present a novel, cause-based approach that improves inconsistency-tolerant query answering and integrity checking, and provides a uniform foundation for both.

Keywords

Integrity Constraint General Query Strong Integrity Conjunctive Query Query Answering 
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.
    Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proc. 18th PODS, pp. 68–79. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arora, T., Ramakrishnan, R., Roth, W., Seshadri, P., Srivastava, D.: Explaining program execution in deductive systems. In: Ceri, S., Tsur, S., Tanaka, K. (eds.) DOOD 1993. LNCS, vol. 760, pp. 101–119. Springer, Heidelberg (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertossi, L.: Consistent query answering in databases. SIGMOD Record 35(2), 68–76 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.): Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chomicki, J.: Consistent Query Answering: Five Easy Pieces. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christiansen, H., Martinenghi, D.: On simplification of database integrity con-straints. Fundamenta Informaticae 71(4), 371–417 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark, K.: Negation as Failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press, New York (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Inconsistency-tolerant Integrity Checking. To appear in IEEE Transactions of Knowledge and Data Engineering, Abstract and preprints at, http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/TKDE.2010.87
  9. 9.
    Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Modeling, Measuring and Monitoring the Quality of Information. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 212–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Classifying integrity checking methods with regard to inconsistency tolerance. In: Proc. 10th PPDP, pp. 195–204. ACM Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: A relaxed approach to integrity and inconsistency in databases. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4246, pp. 287–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kowalski, R.: Predicate Logic as a Programming Language. In: Proc. IFIP 1974, pp. 569–574 (1974)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liebowitz, J. (ed.): Handbook of Applied Expert Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lloyd, J.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hendrik Decker
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto Tecnológico de InformáticaUPVValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations