Making inconsistency respectable: Part 2 — Meta-level handling of inconsistency

  • Dov Gabbay
  • Anthony Hunter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 747)


Inconsistency in a database, when viewed purely logically, seem undesirable. Indeed the traditional approach to dealing with inconsistency in data is to employ means to restore consistency immediately. However, it is important to study the larger environment containing such databases, and the circumstances surrounding the inconsistency. We argue that within the larger environment, an inconsistency can be desirable, and useful, if we know appropriate actions to handle it. In some cases we may wish to remove the inconsistency, and in other cases we may wish to keep it. Moreover, we claim that inconsistencies only become meaningful when considered in the context of the larger environment, and in particular, of how they arise and are handled. In this paper we present a meta-level system that uses actions for handling inconsistent databases.


Temporal Logic Linear Temporal Logic Proof Theory Action Language Inconsistent Data 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson A and Belnap N (1975) Entailment, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer R (1991) Tolerating inconsistnecy, in proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Barringer H, Fisher M, Gabbay D, Gough G and Owens R (1989) MetateM: A framework for programming in temporal logic, in REX Workshop on Stepwise Refinement of Distributed Systems, LNCS 430, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  4. Barringer H, Fisher M, Gabbay D, and Hunter A (1991) Meta-reasoning in executable temporal logic, in Principles of Knowledge and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (KR91), Morgan KaufmannGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowen K and Kowalski R (1982) Amalgamating language and meta-language, in Clark K and Tarnlund S, Logic Programming, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  6. da Costa N C (1974) On the theory of inconsistent formal systems, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15, 497–510Google Scholar
  7. Doyle J (1979) A truth maintenance system, Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231–297Google Scholar
  8. Fagin R, Ullman J and Vardi M (1983) On the semantics of updates in databases, in Proceedings of the Second Annual Association of Computing Machinery Symposium on Principles of Database SystemsGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabbay D (1989) Declarative past and imperative future: Executable temporal logic for intereactive systems, in Banieqbal B, Barringer H and Pneuli A, Proceedings of Colloquium on Temporal Logic in Specification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 398, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. Gabbay D (1991) Labelled deductive systems, Technical report, Centrum fur Informations und Sprachverarbeitung, Universitat MunchenGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabbay D (1993) Labelled deductive systems: A position paper, in Proceedings of Logic Colloquium '90, Lecture Notes in Logic 1, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  12. Gabbay D and Hunter A (1991) Making inconsistency respectable: Part I, in Proceedings of Fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence Research '91, LNCS 535, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  13. Gabbay D and Hunter A (1993) Restricted access logics for inconsistent information, in Proceedings ESQARU'93, LNCS, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardenfors P (1988) Knowledge in Flux, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill P and Lloyd J (1988) Analysis of meta-programs, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Meta-programming in Logic Programming, University of BristolGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunter A (1992) A conceptualization of preferences in non-monotonic proof theory, in Pearce D and Wagner G, Logics in AI, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 633, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. de Kleer J (1978) An assumption-based TMS, Artificial Intelligence, 28, 127–162Google Scholar
  18. Naqvi S and Rossi F (1990) Reasoning in inconsistent databases, in Debray S and Hermenegildo M, Logic Programming: Proceedings of the North American Conference, MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dov Gabbay
    • 1
  • Anthony Hunter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations