Abstract
Semantic properties of any kind, and in particular the riskiness of data can be modeled and monitored by conventional database integrity technology. As opposed to conventional integrity constraints, occasional violations of some of the constraints that capture risk aspects may be tolerable, even for extended periods of time. Traditional integrity checking methods are intolerant wrt. any constraint violation. They insist that all constraints are totally satisfied before updates can be checked for integrity preservation. Inconsistency-tolerant methods can waive that insistence. Thus, if risks are modeled by constraints, they can be monitored by any integrity checking method that is inconsistency-tolerant. We illustrate that by an extended example, in which our inconsistency-tolerant solution is also compared to some alternative approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: 18th PODS, pp. 68–79. ACM Press, New York (1999)
Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.): Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)
Bowen, K., Kowalski, R.A.: Amalgamating language and metalanguage. In: Clark, K., Tärnlund, S.A. (eds.) Logic Programming, pp. 153–172. Academic Press, London (1982)
Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Classifying integrity checking methods with regard to inconsistency tolerance. In: 10th PPDP, pp. 195–204. ACM Press, New York (2008)
Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Modeling, Measuring and Monitoring the Quality of Information. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 212–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Inconsistency-tolerant Integrity Checking. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. Abstract and preprint available at (2010), http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/TKDE.2010.87 (to appear)
Decker, H., Villadsen, J., Waragai, T. (eds.): ICLP 2002 workshop on Paraconsistent Computational Logic. Datalogiske Skrifter, vol. 95. Roskilde University, Denmark (2002)
Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. J. Intelligent Information Systems 27(2), 159–184 (2006)
Gupta, A., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J., Widom, J.: Constraint checking with partial information. In: 13th PODS, pp. 45–55. ACM Press, New York (1994)
Lee, S.Y., Ling, T.W.: Further improvements on integrity constraint checking for stratifiable deductive databases. In: 22nd VLDB, pp. 495–505. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)
Motro, A., Smets, P.: Uncertainty Management in Information Systems: From Needs to Solutions. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1996)
Ramakrishnan, R., Gehrke, J.: Database Management Systems. McGraw-Hill, New York (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Decker, H. (2011). Managing Risks by Integrity Constraints and Integrity Checking. In: Cordeiro, J., Ranchordas, A., Shishkov, B. (eds) Software and Data Technologies. ICSOFT 2009. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 50. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20116-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20116-5_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20115-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20116-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)