Nested transactions in a logical language for active rules

  • Bertram Ludäscher
  • Wolfgang May
  • Georg Lausen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1154)


We present a hierarchically structured transaction-oriented concept for a rule-based active database system. In [LL94, LHL95], we have proposed Statelog as a unified framework for active and deductive rules. Following the need for better structuring capabilities, we introduce procedures as a means to group semantically related rules and to encapsulate their behavior. In addition to executing elementary updates, procedures can be called, thereby defining (sub)transactions which may perform complex computations. A Statelog procedure is a set of ECA-style Datalog rules together with an import/export interface. Systemimmanent frame and procedure rules ensure both propagation of facts and processing of results of committed subtransactions. Thus, Statelog programs specify a nested transaction model which allows a much more structured and natural modeling of complex transactions than previous approaches. Two equivalent semantics for a Statelog program P are given: (i) a logic programming style semantics by a compilation into a logic program, and (ii) a model-theoretic Kripke-style semantics. While (ii) serves as a conceptual model of active rule behavior and allows to reason about properties of the specified transactions, (i) — together with the appropriate execution model — yields an operational semantics and can be used as an implementation of P.


Logic Program Logic Programming Procedure Call Active Rule Kripke Structure 
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. [Abi88]
    S. Abiteboul. Updates, a new frontier. In ICDT, Springer LNCS 326, pp. 1–18, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [AM89]
    M. Abadi and Z. Manna. Temporal logic programming. Journal of Symbolic Comp., 8(3), 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [AV91]
    S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu. Datalog extensions for database queries and updates. JCSS, 43, 1991.Google Scholar
  4. [AWH92]
    A. Aiken, J. Widom, and J. M. Hellerstein. Behavior of database production rules: Termination, confluence, and observable determinism. In SIGMOD, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [AWH95]
    A. Aiken, J. Widom, and J. M. Hellerstein. Static analysis techniques for predicting the behavior of active database rules. TODS, 20(1):3–41, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [Bau95]
    M. Baudinet. On the expressiveness of temporal logic programming. Information and Computation, 117(2), 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [BCP95]
    E. Baralis, S. Ceri, and S. Paraboschi. Run-time detection of non-terminating active rule systems. In Ling et al. [LMV95].Google Scholar
  8. [BK93]
    A. J. Bonner and M. Kifer. Transaction logic programming. In D. S. Warren, editor, ICLP. MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [BK94]
    A. J. Bonner and M. Kifer. An overview of transaction logic. Theoretical Comp. Sci., 133, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [BMPT94]
    A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular logic programming. ACM TOPLAS, 16(4):1361–1398, July 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [BT94]
    A. Brogi and F. Turini. Semantics of meta-logic in an algebra of programs. In LICS, pp. 262–270, Paris, France, July 1994.Google Scholar
  12. [Che95]
    W. Chen. Programming with logical queries, bulk updates and hypothetical reasoning. In B. Thalheim, ed., Proc. of the Workshop Semantics in Databases, Prague, 1995. TU Cottbus.Google Scholar
  13. [Cho90]
    J. Chomicki. Polynomial time query processing in temporal deductive databases. PODS, 1990.Google Scholar
  14. [CI93]
    J. Chomicki and T. Imieliński. Finite representation of infinite query answers. TODS 18(2), 1993.Google Scholar
  15. [DBB+88]
    U. Dayal, B. Blaustein, A. Buchmann, U. Chakravarthy, M. Hsu, R. Ledin, D. McCarthy, A. Rosenthal, S. Sarin, M. J. Carey, M. Livny, and R. Jauhari. The HiPAC project: Combining Active Databases and Timing Constraints. In SIGMOD, 1988.Google Scholar
  16. [DBC96]
    U. Dayal, A. Buchmann, and S. Chakravarthy. The HiPAC Project. In J. Widom and S. Ceri, editors, Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing, Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. [DGG95]
    K. R. Dittrich, S. Gatziu, and A. Geppert. The active database management system manifesto: A rulebase of adbms features. In Sellis [Sel95].Google Scholar
  18. [DHW95]
    U. Dayal, E. Hanson, and J. Widom. Active database systems. In W. Kim, ed., Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond, Ch. 21. ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [FT96]
    P. Fraternali and L. Tanca. A structured approach for the definition of the semantics of active databases. TODS, 1996. to appear.Google Scholar
  20. [GHJ+93]
    S. Ghandeharizadeh, R. Hull, D. Jacobs et al. On implementing a language for specifying active database execution models. In VLDB, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. [GHJ96]
    S. Ghandeharizadeh, R. Hull, and D. Jacobs. Heraclitus: Elevating deltas to be first-class citizens in a database programming language. TODS, 1996. To appear.Google Scholar
  22. [Ham95]
    U. Hamann. Ein System zur Beschreibung und Ausführung von Änderungsoperationen in einer zustandsorientierten Erweiterung von Datalog. Master's thesis, Institut für Informatik, Universität Freiburg, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. [KLS92]
    M. Kramer, G. Lausen, and G. Saake. Updates in a rule-based language for objects. VLDB, 1992.Google Scholar
  24. [KU96]
    A. P. Karadimce and S. D. Urban. Refined triggering graphs: A logic-based approach to termination analysis in an active object-oriented database. In 12th ICDE, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. [LHL95]
    B. Ludäscher, U. Hamann, and G. Lausen. A logical framework for active rules. In Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. on Management of Data (COMAD), Pune, 1995. Tata McGraw-Hill, Scholar
  26. [LL94]
    G. Lausen and B. Ludäscher. Updates by reasoning about states. In 2nd Intl. East-West Database Workshop, Workshops in Computing, Klagenfurt, Austria, 1994. Springer.Google Scholar
  27. [LML96]
    B. Ludäscher, W. May, and G. Lausen. Nested Transactions in a Logical Language for Active Rules. Technical Report 80, Institut für Informatik, Universität Freiburg, 1996.Google Scholar
  28. [LMV95]
    T. W. Ling, A. O. Mendelzon, and L. Vieille, editors. DOOD, Springer LNCS 1013, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. [LS93]
    G. Lausen and G. Saake. A possible world semantics for updates by versioning. In Proc. of 4th Workshop on Modelling Database Dynamics, Volkse, 1993. Springer.Google Scholar
  30. [MBM95]
    D. Montesi, E. Bertino, and M. Martelli. Transactions and updates in deductive databases. Technical Report 2, Dipartimento di Scienze dell'Informazione, Università di Milano, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. [MW88]
    S. Manchanda and D. S. Warren. A logic-based language for database updates. In J. Minker, ed., Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 363–394. 1988.Google Scholar
  32. [MZ95]
    I. Motakis and C. Zaniolo. Composite temporal events in active database rules: A logic-oriented approach. In 4th DOOD, LNCS 1013, 1995.Google Scholar
  33. [PCFW95]
    N. W. Paton, J. Campin, A. A. A. Fernandes, and M. H. Williams. Formal specification of active database functionality: A survey. In Sellis [Sel95].Google Scholar
  34. [Prz88]
    T. C. Przymusinski. On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In J. Minker, ed., Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 191–216. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. [Sel95]
    T. K. Sellis, editor. Proc. of the 2nd Intl. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems (RIDS), Athens, Greece, 1995, Springer LNCS 985.Google Scholar
  36. [SK96]
    E. Simon and J. Kiernan. The a-rdl system. In Widom and Ceri [WC96], Chapter 5.Google Scholar
  37. [VG89]
    A. Van Gelder. The alternating fixpoint of logic programs with negation. In PODS, 1989.Google Scholar
  38. [VGRS91]
    A. Van Gelder, K. Ross, and J. Schlipf. The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. JACM, 38(3):620–650, July 1991.Google Scholar
  39. [WC96]
    J. Widom and S. Ceri, editors. Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  40. [Wid94]
    J. Widom. Active databases. In M. Stonebraker, ed. Readings in Database Systems, 2nd edition. Morgan Kaufmann, 1994. Introduction to Chapter 4.Google Scholar
  41. [Zan93]
    C. Zaniolo. A unified semantics for active and deductive databases. Proc. of the 1st Intl. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems (RIDS), Edinburgh, 1993. Springer.Google Scholar
  42. [Zan95]
    C. Zaniolo. Active database rules with transaction conscious stable model semantics. In Ling et al. [LMV95].Google Scholar
  43. [ZAO93]
    C. Zaniolo, N. Arni, and K. Ong. Negation and Aggregates in Recursive Rules: the \(\mathcal{L}\mathcal{D}\mathcal{L}\) ++ Approach. In S. Ceri, K. Tanaka, and S. Tsur, eds., DOOD, Springer LNCS 760, 1993.Google Scholar
  44. [ZS94]
    C. Zaniolo and R. Sadri. A simple model for active rules and their behavior in deductive databases. Proc. 2nd ICLP Workshop on Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bertram Ludäscher
    • 1
  • Wolfgang May
    • 1
  • Georg Lausen
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations