Formal characterization of active databases

  • Chitta Baral
  • Jorge Lobo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1154)


In this paper we take a first step towards characterizing active databases. Declarative characterization of active databases allows additional flexibility in studying the effects of different priority criteria between fireable rules, different actions and event definitions, and also to make claims about effects of transaction and prove them without actually executing them. Our characterization is related but different from similar attempts by Zaniolo in terms of making a clear distinction between actual and hypothetical execution of actions and allowing non-determinism. We use the ‘choice’ construct [SZ90] to characterize the non-determinism that arises when several rules can fire at the same time and the preference between them is not specified. We show through examples how our language allows us to express features of different active database systems.


Logic Program Logic Programming Stable Model Active Rule Event Definition 
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. [Bar95]
    C. Baral. Reasoning about Actions: Non-deterministic effects, Constraints and Qualification. In Proc. of IJGAI 95, pages 2017–2023, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [BG96]
    C. Baral and M. Gelfond. Reasoning about effects of concurrent actions. Journal of Logic Programming (to appear), 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [BGP96]
    C. Baral, M. Gelfond, and A. Provetti. Representing Actions: Laws, Observations and Hypothesis. Journal of Logic Programming (to appear), 1996.Google Scholar
  4. [BK93]
    A. Bonner and M. Kifer. Transaction logic programming. In D. S. Warren, editor, Logic Programming: Proc. of the 10th International Conf., pages 257–279, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [CFPB96]
    S. Ceri, P. Fraternali, S. Paraboschi, and L. Branca. Active rule management in Chimera. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 151–176. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [DBC96]
    U. Dayal, A. Buchmann, and S. Chakravarthy. The HiPAC Project. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 177–206. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. [FMT94]
    P. Fraternali, D. Montesi, and L. Tanca. Active database semantics. In Proc. of the Fifth Australasian Database Conference, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [GJ96]
    N. Gehani and H. Jagadish. Active database facilities in Ode. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 207–232. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. [Han96]
    E. Hanson. The Ariel Project. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 63–86. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [KL94]
    G. Kartha and V. Lifschitz. Actions with indirect effects: Preliminary report. In KR 94, pages 341–350, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [LLL+94]
    Y. Lesperance, H. Levesque, F. Lin, D. Marcu, R. Reiter, and R. Scherl. A logical approach to high level robot programming — a progress report. In Working notes of the 1994 AAAI fall symposium on Control of the Physical World by Intelligent Systems (to appear), New Orleans, LA, November 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [LR94]
    F. Lin and R. Reiter. State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):655–678, October 1994.Google Scholar
  13. [MLLB96]
    G. Mendez, J Llopis, J. Lobo, and C. Baral. Temporal logic and reasoning about actions. In Common Sense 96, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [MW88]
    S. Manchanda and D. S. Warren. A logic-based language for database updates. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pages 363–394. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  15. [PS96]
    S. Potamianos and M. Stonebraker. The POSTGRESS rule system. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 43–62. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. [Rei94]
    R. Reiter. On specifying database updates. Journal of Logic Programming, 19, 20:1–39, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. [SK96]
    E. Simon and J. Kiernan. The A-RDL system. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 111–150. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. [SW95]
    P. Sistla and O. Wolfson. Temporal conditions and integrity constraint checking in active database systems. In Proceedings of the 1995 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, San Jose, CA, 1995. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  19. [SZ90]
    D. Sacca and C. Zaniolo. Stable models and non-determinism in logic programs with negation. In Proceedings of PODS 1990, pages 205–217, 1990.Google Scholar
  20. [WC96]
    J. Widom and S Ceri, editors. Active Database Systems — Triggers and Rules for advanced database processing. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. [Wid92]
    J. Widom. A denotational semantics for starburst production rule language. SIGMOD Record, 21(3):4–9, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. [Wid96]
    J. Widom. The Starburst rule system. In J. Widom and S Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems, pages 87–110. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. [Zan93]
    C. Zaniolo. A unified semantics for active and deductive databases. In Proceedings of 1st international workshop on rules in database systems, pages 271–287. Springer-Verlag, 1993.Google Scholar
  24. [Zan96]
    C. Zaniolo. Active database rules with transaction-conscious stable models semantics. In Proceedings of DOOD 1996, pages 55–72, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chitta Baral
    • 1
  • Jorge Lobo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Sc.Univ. of Texas at El PasoEl PasoUSA
  2. 2.Department of EECSUniv. of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations