Advertisement

Language extensions for semantic integration of deductive databases

  • P. Asirelli
  • C. Renso
  • F. Turini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1154)

Abstract

A language in support of semantic integration of deductive databases is proposed. The language allows one to construct mediators by extending logic programming with a suite of operators for composing programs and message passing features. The abstract semantics and implementation techniques of the extensions are discussed, and an example of integration of databases supporting libraries and departments is used to illustrate the usefulness of the approach.

Keywords

Logic Program Inference Rule Composition Operator Local Schema Program Expression 
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.
    K. R. Apt. Logic programming. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, pages 493–574. Elsevier, 1990. Vol. B.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Aquilino, P. Asirelli, C. Renso, and F. Turini. An operator for composing deductive databases with theories of constraints. In A. Nerode V. W. Marek, editor, 3rd International Conference on Logic Programming and Non Monotonic Reasoning, volume 928, Lexington, KY, USA, June 1995. LNCS.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N. Arni, K. Ong, and C. Zaniolo. Negation and aggregates in recursive rules: the LDL++ approach. In Proc. 3rd Int. Conference on Deductive and O-O DBs, DOOD93, Phoenix, December, 6–8 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Asirelli, C. Renso, and F. Turini. Semantic integration of deductive databases. Technical Report TR B4-17, IEI-CNR, June 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. Beeri and R. Ramakrishnan. On the power of magic. Journal of Logic Programming, 10(324), 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Brogi. Program Construction in Computational Logic. PhD thesis, University of Pisa, March 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Brogi, A. Chiarelli, V. Mazzotta, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, C. Renso, and F. Turini. Implementations of program composition operations. In M. Hermenegildo and J. Penjam, editors, Proceeding of the Sixth Int'l Symp. on Programming Language Implementation and Logic Programming, volume 844 of LNCS. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Brogi, P. Mancarella, D. Pedreschi, and F. Turini. Modular Logic Programming. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 16(4):1361–1398, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Brogi, C. Renso, and F. Turini. Program composition and message passing in logic programming. technical report, University of Pisa, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Brogi and F. Turini. Fully abstract compositional semantics for an algebra of logic programs. Theoretical Computer Science, 150, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Chawathe, H. Garcia-Molina, J. Hammer, K. Ireland, Y. Papakonstantinou, J. Ullman, and J. Widom. The TSIMMIS project: Integration of heterogeneous information sources. In Proceedings of IPSJ Conference, Tokyo, Japan, October 1994.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Krishnamurthy, W. Litwin, and W. Kent. Language features for interoperability of databases with schematic discrepancies. In ACM SIGMOD Conference, volume 20. ACM, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Lakshmanan, F. Sadri, and I. Subramanian. Logic and algebraic languages for interoperability in multidatabase systems. Technical Report TR-DB-95-01, Department of Computer Science, Concordia University, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Lu, A. Nerode, and V.S. Subrahmanian. Hybrid knowledge bases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    P. Mancarella and D. Pedreschi. An algebra of logic programs. In R. A. Kowalski and K. A. Bowen, editors, Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 1006–1023. The MIT Press. 1988.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Mascellani and D. Pedreschi. The declarative side of magic. submitted for publication, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Palamidessi. Algebraic properties of idempotent substitutions. In Springer-Verlag, editor, Proc. of the 17th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), number 443 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 386–399, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Y. Papakostantinou, H. Garcia-Molina, and J. Ullman. Medmaker: A mediation system based on declarative specifications. In ICDE, 1996. to appear.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Silberschatz, M. Stonebraker, and J. Ullman. Database research: Achievements and oppurtunities into the 21st century. Technical report, NFS Report, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    VS. Subrahmanian, S. Adali, A. Brink, JJ. Lu, A. Rajput, J. Rogers, R. Ross, and C. Ward. HERMES: A heterogeneous reasoning and mediator system. submitted for publication. Can be found in http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/hermes/overview/paper/index.html.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Ullman. High level interoperation. Slides.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. H. van Emden and R. A. Kowalski. The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the ACM, 23(4):733–742, 1976.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Wiederhold. Mediators in the architecture of future information systems. IEEE Computer, 25:38–49, March 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Asirelli
    • 1
  • C. Renso
    • 2
  • F. Turini
    • 2
  1. 1.IEI-CNRPisaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di InformaticaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations