Advertisement

On active deductive databases: The statelog approach

  • Georg Lausen
  • Bertram Ludäscher
  • Wolfgang May
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1472)

Abstract

After briefly reviewing the basic notions and terminology of active rules and relating them to production rules and deductive rules, respectively, we survey a number of formal approaches to active rules. Subsequently, we present our own state-oriented logical approach to active rules which combines the declarative semantics of deductive rules with the possibility to define updates in the style of production rules and active rules. The resulting language Statelog is surprisingly simple, yet captures many features of active rules including composite event detection and different coupling modes. Thus, it can be used for the formal analysis of rule properties like termination and expressive power. Finally, we show how nested transactions can be modeled in Statelog, both from the operational and the model-theoretic perspective.

Keywords

Logic Program Logic Programming Production Rule Operational Semantic Composite Event 
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. [ABW88]
    K. R. Apt, H. Blair, and A. Walker. Towards a Theory of Declarative Knowledge. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [AHV95]
    S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [AS91]
    S. Abiteboul and E. Simon. Fundamental Properties of Deterministic and Nondeterministic Extensions of Datalog. Theoretical Computer Science, 78(1):137–158, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [AV91]
    S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu. Datalog Extensions for Database Queries and Updates. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43(1):62–124, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [AWH95]
    A. Aiken, J. Widom, and J. M. Hellerstein. Static Analysis Techniques for Predicting the Behavior of Active Database Rules. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 20(1):3–41, March 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [BCP95]
    E. Baralis, S. Ceri, and S. Paraboschi. Improving Rule Analysis by Means of Triggering and Activation Graphs. In Sellis [Sel95], pp. 165–181.Google Scholar
  7. [BFKM85]
    L. Brownston, R. Farrel, E. Kant, and N. Martin. Programming Expert Systems in OPS5: An Introduction to Rule-Based Programming. Addison-Wesley, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. [BFP+95]
    M. L. Barja, A. A. A. Fernandes, N. W. Paton, M. H. Williams, A. Dinn, and A. I. Abdelmoty. Design and implementation of ROCK & ROLL: a deductive object-oriented database system. Information Systems, 20(3):185–211, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [BGP97]
    C. Baral, M. Gelfond, and A. Provetti. Representing Actions: Laws, Observations and Hypotheses. Journal of Logic Programming, 31(1–3):201–243, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [BH95]
    M. Berndtsson and J. Hansson, editors. 1st Intl. Workshop on Active and Real-Time Database Systems (ARTDB), Workshops in Computing, Skövde, 1995. Springer.Google Scholar
  11. [BK94]
    A. J. Bonner and M. Kifer. An Overview of Transaction Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 133(2):205–265, 1994.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [BL96]
    C. Baral and J. Lobo. Formal Characterization of Active Databases. In Pedreschi and Zaniolo [PZ96], pp. 175–195.Google Scholar
  13. [BLT97]
    C. Baral, J. Lobo, and G. Trajcevski. Formal Characterization of Active Databases: Part II. In F. Bry, K. Ramamohanarao, and R. Ramakrishnan, editors, Intl. Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD), number 1341 in LNCS, pp. 247–264, Montreux, Switzerland, 1997. Springer.Google Scholar
  14. [BW94]
    E. Baralis and J. Widom. An Algebraic Approach to Rule Analysis in Expert Database Systems. In Intl. Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 475–486, Santiago, Chile, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. [CFPT96]
    S. Ceri, P. Fraternali, S. Paraboschi, and L. Tanca. Active Rule Management in Chimera. In Widom and Ceri [WC96a], chapter 6, pp. 151–176.Google Scholar
  16. [Cha92]
    S. Chakravarthy, editor. Bulletin of the Technical Committee on Data Engineering: Special Issue on Active Databases, volume 15(1–4). IEEE Computer Society, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [Che95]
    W. Chen. Programming with Logical Queries, Bulk Updates and Hypothetical Reasoning. In B. Thalheim, editor, Workshop Semantics in Databases, Prague, January 1995. Technische Universität Cottbus.Google Scholar
  18. [Cho95a]
    J. Chomicki. Depth-Bounded Bottom-Up Evaluation of Logic Programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 25(1):1–31, October 1995.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Cho95b]
    J. Chomicki. Efficient Checking of Temporal Integrity Constraints Using Bounded History Encoding. ACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 20(2):149–186, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [CKAK94]
    S. Chakravarthy, V. Krishnaprasad, E. Anwar, and S.-K. Kim. Composite Events for Active Databases: Semantics, Contexts and Detection. In J. B. Bocca, M. Jarke, and C. Zaniolo, editors, Intl. Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 606–617, Santiago de Chile, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. [CM94]
    S. Chakravarthy and D. Mishra. Snoop: An Expressive Event Specification Language for Active Databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 14:1–26, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [CPM96]
    R. Cochrane, H. Pirahesh, and N. Mattos. Integrating Triggers and Declarative Constraints in SQL Database Sytems. In Intl. Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 567–578, Mumbai (Bombay), India, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. [Day95]
    U. Dayal. Ten Years of Activity in Active Database Systems: What Have We Accomplished? In M. Berndtsson and J. Hansson, editors, 1st Intl. Workshop on Active and Real-Time Database Systems (ARTDB), Workshops in Computing, pp. 3–22, Skövde, 1995. Springer.Google Scholar
  24. [DGG95]
    K. R. Dittrich, S. Gatziu, and A. Geppert. The Active Database Management System Manifesto: A Rulebase of ADBMS Features. In Sellis [Sel95], pp. 3–20.Google Scholar
  25. [DHW95]
    U. Dayal, E. Hanson, and J. Widom. Active Database Systems. In W. Kim, editor, Modern Database Systems: The Object Model, Interoperability, and Beyond, chapter 21, pp. 434–456. ACM Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. [FT95]
    P. Fraternali and L. Tanca. A Structured Approach for the Definition of the Semantics of Active Databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 20(4):414–471, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [FWP97]
    A. A. A. Fernandes, M. H. Williams, and N. W. Paton. A Logic-Based Integration of Active and Deductive Databases. New Generation Computing, 15(2):205–244, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [GB97]
    A. Geppert and M. Berndtsson, editors. Proc. of the 3nd Intl. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems (RIDS), number 1312 in LNCS, Skövde, Sweden, 1997.Google Scholar
  29. [GGSZ97]
    F. Giannotti, S. Greco, D. Saccà, and C. Zaniolo. Programming with NonDeterminism in Deductive Databases. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 19(I–II):97–125, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [GL88]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In R. Kowalski and K. Bowen, editors, Intl. Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), pp. 1070–1080, 1988.Google Scholar
  31. [GL93]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Representing Action and Change by Logic Programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–321, 1993.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [GMS92]
    G. Gottlob, G. Moerkotte, and V. S. Subrahmanian. The PARK Semantics for Active Rules. In P. M. G. Apers, M. Bouzeghoub, and G. Gardarin, editors, Intl. Conference on Extending Database Technology, number 1057 in LNCS, Avignon, France, 1992. Springer.Google Scholar
  33. [ISO97]
    ISO-ANSI Working draft. SQL3, 1997. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 21/WG 3.Google Scholar
  34. [KC95]
    S.-K. Kim and S. Chakravarthy. A Confluent Rule Execution Model for Active Databases. Technical Report UF-CIS-TR-95-032, University of Florida, 1995. http://www.cis.ufl.edu/~sharma.Google Scholar
  35. [KdMS90]
    G. Kiernan, C. de Maindreville, and E. Simon. Making Deductive Database a Practical Technology: a step forward. In ACM Intl. Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 237–246, 1990.Google Scholar
  36. [KLS92]
    M. Kramer, G. Lausen, and G. Saake. Updates in a Rule-Based Language for Objects. In Intl. Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 251–262, Vancouver, 1992.Google Scholar
  37. [Kow92]
    R. A. Kowalski. Database Updates in the Event Calculus. Journal of Logic Programming, 12(1&2):121–146, 1992.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [KRS95]
    D. B. Kemp, K. Ramamohanarao, and P. J. Stuckey. ELS Programs and the Efficient Evaluation of Non-Stratified Programs by Transformation to ELS. In Ling et al. [LMV95], pp. 91–108.Google Scholar
  39. [KU96]
    A. P. Karadimce and S. D. Urban. Refined Triggering Graphs: A LogicBased Approach to Termination Analysis in an Active Object-oriented Database. In 12th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 384–391, 1996.Google Scholar
  40. [LHL95]
    B. Ludäscher, U. Hamann, and G. Lausen. A Logical Framework for Active Rules. In Proc. 7th Intl. Conference on Management of Data (COMAD), pp. 221–238, Pune, India, 1995. Tata McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. [LLM98]
    G. Lausen, B. Ludäscher, and W. May. On Logical Foundations of Active Databases. In J. Chomicki and G. Saake, editors, Logics for Databases and Information Systems, chapter 12, pp. 389–422. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998.Google Scholar
  42. [LML96]
    B. Ludäscher, W. May, and G. Lausen. Nested Transactions in a Logical Language for Active Rules. In Pedreschi and Zaniolo [PZ96], pp. 196–222.Google Scholar
  43. [LMV95]
    T. W. Ling, A. O. Mendelzon, and L. Vieille, editors. Intl. Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD), number 1013 in LNCS, Singapore, 1995. Springer.Google Scholar
  44. [LS87]
    U. W. Lipeck and G. Saake. Monitoring Dynamic Integrity Constraints Based on Temporal Logic. Information Systems, pp. 255–269, 1987.Google Scholar
  45. [Lud98]
    B. Ludäscher. Integration of Active and Deductive Database Rules. PhD thesis, Institut für Informatik, Universität Freiburg, infix-Verlag, DISDBIS 45, 1998.Google Scholar
  46. [Min96]
    J. Minker. Logic and Databases: a 20 Year Retrospective. In Pedreschi and Zaniolo [PZ96], pp. 3–57.Google Scholar
  47. [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, pp. 363–394. Morgan-Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988.Google Scholar
  48. [MZ95]
    I. Motakis and C. Zaniolo. Composite Temporal Events in Active Database Rules: A Logic-Oriented Approach. In Ling et al. [LMV95], pp. 19–37.Google Scholar
  49. [MZ97]
    I. Motakis and C. Zaniolo. Temporal Aggregation in Active Database Rules. In ACM Intl. Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 440–451, Tucson, Arizona, 1997.Google Scholar
  50. [NT89]
    S. Naqvi and S. Tsur. A Logical Language for Data and Knowledge Bases. Computer Science Press, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
  51. [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], pp. 21–37.Google Scholar
  52. [PDW+93]
    N. W. Paton, O. Díaz, M. H. Williams, J. Campin, A. Dinn, and A. Jaime. Dimensions of Active Behaviour. In Paton and Williams [PW93], pp. 40–57.Google Scholar
  53. [Prz88]
    T. C. Przymusinski. On the Declarative Semantics of Deductive Databases and Logic Programs. In J. Minker, editor, Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 191–216. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  54. [PV95]
    P. Picouet and V. Vianu. Semantics and Expressiveness Issues in Active Databases. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), 1995.Google Scholar
  55. [PV97]
    P. Picouet and V. Vianu. Expressiveness and Complexity of Active Databases. In F. Afrati and P. Kolaitis, editors, 6th Intl. Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), number 1186 in LNCS, pp. 155–172, Delphi, Greece, 1997. Springer.Google Scholar
  56. [PW93]
    N. W. Paton and M. H. Williams, editors. 1st Intl. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems (RIDS), Workshops in Computing, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1993. Springer.Google Scholar
  57. [PZ96]
    D. Pedreschi and C. Zaniolo, editors. Intl. Workshop on Logic in Databases (LID), number 1154 in LNCS, San Miniato, Italy, 1996. Springer.Google Scholar
  58. [RH94]
    K. Ramamohanarao and J. Harland. An Introduction to Deductive Database Languages and Systems. The VLDB Journal, 3(2):107–122, April 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [Sel95]
    T. K. Sellis, editor. 2nd Intl. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems (RIDS), number 985 in LNCS, Athens, Greece, 1995. Springer.Google Scholar
  60. [Sin95]
    M. P. Singh. Semantical Considerations on Workflows: An Algebra for Intertask Dependencies. In Intl. Workshop on Database Programming Languages, electronic Workshops in Computing, Gubbio, Italy, 1995. Springer.Google Scholar
  61. [SK96]
    E. Simon and J. Kiernan. The A-RDL System. In Widom and Ceri [WC96a], chapter 5, pp. 111–149.Google Scholar
  62. [SP97]
    P. Sampaio and N. Paton. Deductive Object-Oriented Database Systems: A Survey. In Geppert and Berndtsson [GB97], pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  63. [SSW94]
    K. F. Sagonas, T. Swift, and D. S. Warren. XSB as an Efficient Deductive Database Engin. In ACM Intl. Conference on Management of Data (SIGMOD), pp. 442–453, 1994.Google Scholar
  64. [SZ90]
    S. Saccà and C. Zaniolo. Stable Models and Non-Determinism in Logic Programs with Negation. In Proc. of the 9th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pp. 205–217, 1990.Google Scholar
  65. [VG89]
    A. Van Gelder. The Alternating Fixpoint of Logic Programs with Negation. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 1–10, 1989.Google Scholar
  66. [Via97]
    V. Vianu. Rule-Based Languages. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 19(I–II):215–259, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [WC94]
    J. Widom and S. Chakravarthy, editors. 4th Intl. Workshop on Research Issues in Data Engineering (RIDE). IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  68. [WC96a]
    J. Widom and S. Ceri, editors. Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar
  69. [WC96b]
    J. Widom and S. Ceri. Introduction to Active Database Systems. In Active Database Systems: Triggers and Rules for Advanced Database Processing, chapter 1, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar
  70. [WF97]
    C.-A. Wichert and B. Freitag. Capturing Database Dynamics by Deferred Updates. In Intl. Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), Leuven, Belgium, 1997. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  71. [Wid93]
    J. Widom. Deductive and Active Databases: Two Paradigms or Ends of a Spectrum. In Paton and Williams [PW93].Google Scholar
  72. [Zan93]
    C. Zaniolo. A Unified Semantics for Active and Deductive Databases. In Paton and Williams [PW93], pp. 271–287.Google Scholar
  73. [Zan95]
    C. Zaniolo. Active Database Rules with Transaction Conscious Stable Model Semantics. In Ling et al. [LMV95], pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
  74. [ZH90]
    Y. Zhou and M. Hsu. A Theory for Rule Triggering Systems. In Intl. Conf. on Extending Database Technology, pp. 407–421, 1990.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations