Advertisement

Applying transition rules to bitemporal deductive databases for integrity constraint checking

  • Carme Martín
  • Jaume Sistac
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1154)

Abstract

A bitemporal deductive database is a deductive database that supports valid and transaction time. A set of facts to be inserted and/or deleted in a bitemporal deductive database can be done in a past, present or future valid time. This circumstance causes that the maintenance of database consistency becomes more hard. In this paper, we present a new approach to reduce the difficulty of this problem, based on applying transition and event rules, which explicitly define the insertions and deletions given by a database update. Transition rules range over all the possible cases in which an update could violate some integrity contraint. Although, we have a large amount of transition rules, for each one we argue its utility or we eliminate it. We augment a database with this set of transition and event rules and then standard SLDNF resolution can be used to check satisfaction of integrity constraints.

Keywords

Transition Rule Integrity Constraint Deletion Event Valid Time Deductive Database 
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.
    Allen, J.F. “Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals”. In Communications of the ACM. Vol. 26. Num 11. 1983. pp 832–843.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Apt, K.R.; Blair, H.A.; Walker, A. “Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge”. In Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming (J. Minker ed.). Morgan Kaufmann. 1988. pp 89–148.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Böhlen, M. “Managing Temporal Knowledge in Deductive Databases”. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Zürich, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bry, F.; Manthey, R.; Martens, R. “Integrity Verification in Knowledge Bases”. ECRC Report D.2.1.a, München, April 1990, 26 p.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chomicki, J. “History-less Checking of Dynamic Integrity Constraints”. In the 8th Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, IEEE Computer Society Press. Phoenix AZ, February, 1992. pp 557–564.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chomicki, J. “Efficient Checking Encoding of Temporal Integrity Constraints Using Bounded History Encoding”. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. June, 1995. pp 149–186.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gertz, M.; Lipeck, U.W. ““Temporal” Integrity Constraints in Temporal Databases”. Proc. of the International Workshop on Temporal Databases. Zürich. (Clifford/Tuzhilin Eds). Springer-Verlag, September, 1995. pp 77–92.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jensen, C.S.; Clifford, J.; Gadia, S.K.; Segev, A.; Snodgrass, R.T. “A Glossary of Temporal Database Concepts”. Proc. SIGMOD-RECORD. Vol. 21.1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kline, N. “An Update of the Temporal Database Bibliography”. Proc. SIGMOD-RECORD. Vol. 22. Num. 4. 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kowalski, R.; Sergot, M. “A Logic-Based Calculus of Events” New Generation Computing. Vol 4, Num 1. February, 1986. pp 67–95. OHMSHA LTD and Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lloyd, J.W. “Foundations on Logic Programming”. Second edition. Springer, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mylopoulos, J.; Borgida, A.; Jarke, M.; Koubarakis, M. “Telos: Representing Knowledge About Information Systems”. ACM Transactions on information systems. Vol. 8. Num 4. 1990. pp 324–362.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martín, C; Sistac, J. “Integrity Constraints Checking in Historical Deductive Databases”. Proc. of the 5th. Int. Workshop on the Deductive Approach to Information Systems and Databases. Aiguablava, 1994. pp 299–324.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martín, C; Sistac, J. “A Method for Integrity Constraint Checking in Temporal Deductive Databases”. To appear in Proc. of the 3th. Int. Workshop on Temporal Representation and Reasoning. Florida, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nicolas, J.M. “Logic for Improving Integrity Checking in Deductive Databases”. In Gallaire, H.; Minker, J. Eds. “Logic and databases”. Plenum Press. 1978, pp 325–344.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Olivé, A. “On the Design and Implementation of Information Systems from Deductive Conceptual Models”. Proc. of the 15th. Int. Conf. on VLDB'89, pp 3–11.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olivé, A. “Integrity Constraints Checking in Deductive Databases”. Proc. of the 17th. Int. Conf on VLDB'91. pp 513–523.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plexousakis, D. “Integrity Constraint and Rule Maintenance in Temporal Deductive Knowledge Bases”. Proc. of the 19th. Int. Conf. on VLDB'93. pp 146–157.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sadri, F.; Kowalski, R. “Variants of the Event Calculus”. Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, 1995. pp 67–81.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sarda, N.L. “HSQL: A Historical Query Language”. In [25], pp 110–140.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Snodgrass, R.; Ahn, I. “Temporal Databases”. IEEE Computer. Vol 19. Num 9. September, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sancho, M.R; Olivé, A. “Deriving Transactions Specifications from Deductive Conceptual Models of Information Systems”. Proc. of CAiSE'94 conference. 1994, pp 311–324.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sripada, S.M.; Möller, P. “The Generalized ChronoBase Temporal Data Model”. In K. Apt, F. Turini (eds). Meta-Logics and logic programming, MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sripada, S.M. “Efficient Implementation of the Event Calculus for Temporal Deductive Databases”. Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, 1995. pp 99–113.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tansel, A.U.; Clifford, J.; Gadia, S.; Jajodia, S.; Segev, A.; Snodgrass, R. “Temporal Databases: Theory, Design and Implementation”. Benjamin/Cummings. 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Urpí, T.; Teniente, E.; Pastor, J.A.; Mayol, E.; Martín, C. “FOLRE: Towards a System for the Integrated Treatment of Updates and Rule Enforcement in Deductive Databases”. In Proc. of the Sixth ERCIM Database Research Group Workshop on Deductive and Interoperable Databases. Barcelona. Nov. 1994.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van Belleghem, K.; Denecker, M.; De Schreye, D. “Combining Situation Calculus and Event Calculus”. Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, 1995. pp 83–97.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wüthrich, B. “Large Deductive Databases with Constraints”. PhD thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Zürich, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carme Martín
    • 1
  • Jaume Sistac
    • 1
  1. 1.Departament de Llenguatges i Sistemes InformàticsUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelona

Personalised recommendations