Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inconsistency-Tolerant Database Repairs and Simplified Repair Checking by Measure-Based Integrity Checking

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems XXXIV

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((TLDKS,volume 10620))

  • 307 Accesses

Abstract

Database states may be inconsistent, i.e., their integrity may be violated. Database repairs are updates such that all integrity constraints become satisfied, while keeping the necessary changes to a minimum. Updates intending to repair inconsistency may go wrong. Repair checking is to find out if a given update is a repair, i.e., if the updated state is free of integrity violations and if the changes are minimal. However, integrity violations may be numerous, complex or opaque, so that attaining a complete absence of inconsistency is not realistic. We discuss inconsistency-tolerant concepts of repair and repair checking. Repairs are no longer asked to be total, i.e., only some but not all inconsistency is supposed to disappear by a repair. For checking if an update reduces the amount of inconsistency, integrity violations need to be comparable. For that, we use measure-based integrity checking. Both the inconsistency reduction and the minimality of inconsistency-tolerant repair candidates can be verified or falsified by measure-based integrity checkers that simplify the evaluation of constraints. As opposed to total repair checking, which evaluates integrity constraints brute-force, simplified repair checking exploits the incrementality of updates.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Afrati, F., Kolaitis, P.: Repair checking in inconsistent databases: algorithms and complexity. In: Proceedings of 12th ICDT, pp. 31–41. ACM Press (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: Proceedings of PODS, pp. 68–79. ACM Press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arming, S., Pichler, B., Sallinger, E.: Combined complexity of repair checking and consistent query answering. In: Proceedings 19th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), vol. 48, pp. 21:1–21:18. LIPIcs (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bayer, R.: Integrity, concurrency, and recovery in databases. In: Samelson, K. (ed.) ECI 1976. LNCS, vol. 44, pp. 79–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1976). doi:10.1007/3-540-07804-5_24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Bertossi, L.: Consistent query answering in databases. SIGMOD Rec. 35(2), 68–76 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Besnard, P.: Basic postulates for inconsistency measures. In: Hameurlain, A. (ed.) TLDKS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10620, pp. 1–12. Springer, Cham (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bry, F., Decker, H., Manthey, R.: A uniform approach to constraint satisfaction and constraint satisfiability in deductive databases. In: Schmidt, J.W., Ceri, S., Missikoff, M. (eds.) EDBT 1988. LNCS, vol. 303, pp. 488–505. Springer, Heidelberg (1988). doi:10.1007/3-540-19074-0_69

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cavedon, L.: Acyclic logic programs and the completeness of sldnf-resolution. Theor. Comput. Sci. 86(1), 81–92 (1991)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Celma, M., Garcia, C., Mota, L., Decker, H.: Comparing and synthesizing integrity checking methods for deductive databases. In: Proceedings of 10th ICDE, pp. 214–222. IEEE Computer Society (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ceri, S., Cochrane, R., Widom, J.: Practical applications of triggers and constraints: success and lingering issues (10-year award). In: Abbadi, A.E., Brodie, M., Chakravarthy, S., Dayal, U., Kamel, N., Schlageter, G., Whang, K.-Y. (eds.) Proceedings of 26th VLDB, pp. 254–262. Morgan Kaufmann (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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). doi:10.1007/11965893_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J.: Minimal-change integrity maintenance using tuple deletions. Inf. Comput. 197(12), 90–121 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Christiansen, H., Martinenghi, D.: Incremental integrity checking: limitations and possibilities. In: Sutcliffe, G., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3835, pp. 712–727. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11591191_49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Christiansen, H., Martinenghi, D.: On simplification of database integrity constraints. Fundamenta Informaticae 71(4), 371–417 (2006)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Das, S.K., Williams, H.: Integrity checking methods in deductive databases:a comparative evaluation. In: Proceedings of 7th BNCOD, British National Conference on Databases, pp. 85–116. CUP (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Decker, H.: Integrity enforcement on deductive databases. In: Kerschberg, L. (ed.) Expert Database Systems, pp. 381–395. Benjamin Cummings (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Decker, H.: An extension of SLD by abduction and integrity maintenance for view updating in deductive databases. In: Maher, M.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1996 Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 157–169. MIT Press (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Decker, H.: Toward a Uniform Cause-Based Approach to Inconsistency-Tolerant Database Semantics. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010. LNCS, vol. 6427, pp. 983–998. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16949-6_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Decker, H.: Answers that have integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6834, pp. 54–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23441-5_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Decker, H.: Partial repairs that tolerate inconsistency. In: Eder, J., Bielikova, M., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ADBIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6909, pp. 389–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23737-9_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Decker, H.: Axiomatizing inconsistency metrics for integrity maintenance. In: Proceedings of 16th KES, pp. 1243–1252. IOS Press (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Decker, H.: New measures for maintaining the quality of databases. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Misra, S., Nedjah, N., Rocha, A.M.A.C., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2012. LNCS, vol. 7336, pp. 170–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31128-4_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Decker, H.: Measure-based inconsistency-tolerant maintenance of database integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2011. LNCS, vol. 7693, pp. 149–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36008-4_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Decker, H.: Database inconsistency measuring (2017, submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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). doi:10.1007/11916277_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Classifying integrity checking methods with regard to inconsistency tolerance. In: Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, pp. 195–204. ACM Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Database integrity checking. In: Erickson, J. (ed.) Database Technologies: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, vol. I, pp. 212–220. IGI Global (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04947-7_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Inconsistency-tolerant integrity checking. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 23(2), 218–234 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Decker, H., Misra, S.: Measure-based repair checking by integrity checking. In: Gervasi, O., et al. (eds.) ICCSA 2016. LNCS, vol. 9790, pp. 530–543. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-42092-9_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Decker, H., Pascual-Miret, L., Misra, S.: Repair checking by integrity checking. In: 27th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA 2016 Workshop COIN, pp. 134–138. IEEE Computer Society (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Doorn, J.H., Rivero, L.C.: Database Integrity: Challenges and Solutions. Idea Group Publishing (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Elmasri, R., Navathe, S.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 7th edn. Pearson, London (2016)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Fan, W.: Constraint-driven database repair. In: Liu, L., Özsu, M.T. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 458–463. Springer, USA (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gabbay, D., Hunter, A.: Making inconsistency respectable: A logical framework for inconsistency in reasoning, part I — A position paper. In: Jorrand, P., Kelemen, J. (eds.) FAIR 1991. LNCS, vol. 535, pp. 19–32. Springer, Heidelberg (1991). doi:10.1007/3-540-54507-7_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Grant, J.: Classifications for inconsistent theories. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 19(3), 435–444 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring the good and the bad in inconsistent information. In: Proceedings of 22nd IJCAI, pp. 2632–2637. IJCAI-AAAI (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Gupta, A., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J.D., Widom, J.: Constraint checking with partial information. In: Proceedings of PODS 1994, pp. 45–55. ACM Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hernandez, M.J.: Database Design for Mere Mortals: A Hands-On Guide to Relational Database Design, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ibrahim, H.: Checking integrity constraints - how it differs in centralized, distributed and parallel databases. In: 17th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2006), pp. 563–568. IEEE Computer Society (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Konieczny, S., Lang, J., Marquis, P.: Quantifying information and contradiction in propositional logic through epistemic tests. In: Proceedings of 18th IJCAI, pp. 106–111. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kowalski, R., Sadri, F.: Integrating logic programming and production systems in abductive logic programming agents. In: Polleres, A., Swift, T. (eds.) RR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5837, pp. 1–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-05082-4_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Kowalski, R.A., Sadri, F.: Abductive logic programming agents with destructive databases. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 62(1–2), 129–158 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Lin, F., You, J.: Abduction in logic programming: a new definition and an abductive procedure based on rewriting. Artif. Intell. 140(1/2), 175–205 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Ling, T.W., Lee, S.Y.: A survey of integrity constraint checking methods in relational databases. In: Kim, I.P.W., Kambayashi, Y. (ed.) Database Systems for Next-Generation Applications. Advanced Database Research and Development Series, vol. 1, pp. 68–78. World Scientific (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lloyd, J.W., Sonenberg, L., Topor, R.W.: Integrity constraint checking in stratified databases. J. Logic Program. 4(4), 331–343 (1987)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Martinenghi, D., Christiansen, H., Decker, H.: Integrity checking and maintenance in relational and deductive databases and beyond. In: Ma, Z. (ed.) Intelligent Databases: Technologies and Applications, pp. 238–285. IGI Global (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Muñoz-Escoí, F.D., Ruiz-Fuertes, M.I., Decker, H., Armendáriz-Íñigo, J.E., Mendívil, J.R.G.: Extending middleware protocols for database replication with integrity support. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5331, pp. 607–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88871-0_43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Nicolas, J.-M.: A property of logical formulas corresponding to integrity constraints on data base relations. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Formal Bases for Data Bases 1979 (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nicolas, J.-M.: Logic for improving integrity checking in relational data bases. Acta Informatica 18, 227–253 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Ramakrishnan, R., Gehrke, J.: Database Management Systems. McGraw-Hill, New York (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Reiter, R.: What should a database know? J. Logic Program. 14(1&2), 127–153 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.: A theorem-proving approach to database integrity. In: Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 313–362. Morgan Kaufmann (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Shave, M.: Problems of integrity and distributed databases. J. Softw. Pract. Experience 10(2), 135–147 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sörensen, O., Thalheim, B.: Semantics and pragmatics of integrity constraints. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2011. LNCS, vol. 7693, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36008-4_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  58. Staworko, S., Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J.: Prioritized repairing and consistent query answering in relational databases. CoRR, abs/0908.0464 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Thimm, M.: On the compliance of rationality postulates for inconsistency measures: a more or less complete picture. KI 31(1), 31–39 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Topor, R.: Safety and domain independence. In: Liu, L., Özsu, T. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Database Systems, pp. 2463–2466. Springer, USA (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wijsen, J.: Database repairing using updates. Trans. Database Syst. 30(3), 722–768 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wijsen, J.: On condensing database repairs obtained by tuple deletions. In: 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2005), pp. 849–853. IEEE Computer Society (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Preliminary stages of the work presented in this paper have been published in [31] and [32]. John Grant had provided valuable comment on early drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PROS, DSIC, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Hendrik Decker

Authors
  1. Hendrik Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hendrik Decker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. IRIT, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France

    Abdelkader Hameurlain

  2. FAW, University of Linz, Linz, Austria

    Josef Küng

  3. FAW, University of Linz, Linz, Austria

    Roland Wagner

  4. Polytechnic University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Hendrik Decker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Decker, H. (2017). Inconsistency-Tolerant Database Repairs and Simplified Repair Checking by Measure-Based Integrity Checking. In: Hameurlain, A., Küng, J., Wagner, R., Decker, H. (eds) Transactions on Large-Scale Data- and Knowledge-Centered Systems XXXIV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10620. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55947-5_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-55947-5_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55946-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55947-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation