Advertisement

Active-U-Datalog: Integrating active rules in a logical update language

  • Elisa Bertino
  • Barbara Catania
  • Vincenzo Gervasi
  • Alessandra Raffaetà
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1472)

Abstract

Deductive database technology represents an important step towards the goal of developing highly-declarative database programming languages. In order to make deductive databases a practical technology, deductive rules have to be extended to provide a dynamic behavior. In particular, current applications require not only a support for updates and transactions but also the ability to automatically react to the occurrence of particular events. This is possible by integrating typical deductive rules, whose execution is user-dependent, with active rules, whose execution is event-dependent. Current solutions to this problem are not completely satisfactory. In particular, they often lack a clear semantics, guaranteeing termination, confluence and efficient evaluation. The aim of this paper is to propose a new language for integrating active rules, deductive rules and updates in a uniform logical context. The language we propose is based on the U-Datalog language [9], and extends it with support for active rules, modeled according to the PARK semantics [23]. The resulting language allows the representation of several dynamic aspects, such as transaction execution, reactive behavior and update propagation, in a uniform logical framework, admitting a clear and flexible semantics.

Keywords

Logic Programming Integrity Constraint Predicate Symbol Active Rule 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.
    S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu. A Transaction Language Complete for Database Updates and Specification. In Proc. of the Seventh ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 260–268, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu. Procedural and Declarative Database Update Languages. In Proc. of the Eighth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 240–250, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ANSI TC X3H2 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 21/WG 3. Master Index for SQL and all its Parts, March 1966. Document X3H2-96-066 DBL:MCI-011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ASK Computer Co. INGRES/SQL Reference Manual.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Bertino, G. Guerrini, and D. Montesi. Toward Deductive Object Databases. Theory and Practice of Object Systems, 1(1):19–39, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Bertino and B. Catania. Static Analysis of Intensional Databases in U-Datalog. In Proc. of the ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'96), pages 201–212, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Bertino and B. Catania. The Expressive Power of U-Datalog Programs. In Preparation, 1998.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. Bertino, B. Catania, G. Guerrini, M. Martelli, and D. Montesi. A Bottom-Up Interpreter for a Database Language with Updates and Transactions. In Proc. of the Joint Conference on Declarative Programming, Vol. II, pages 206–220, Peniscola, Spain, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Bertino, M. Martelli, and D. Montesi. Transactions and Updates in Deductive Databases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 9(5):784–797, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.J. Bonner and M. Kifer. An Overview of Transaction Logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 133(2):205–265, 1994.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Castagna, G. Guerrini, D. Montesi, and G. Rodriguez. Design and Implementation for the Active Rule Language of Chimera. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. and Workshop on Database and Expert Systems, pages 45–54, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Ceri, G. Gottlob, and L. Tanca. Logic Programming and Databases. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Ceri and J. Widom. Deriving Incremental Production Rules for Deductive Data. Information Systems, 19(6):467–490, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Chakravarthy et al. HiPAC: A Research Project in Active, Time-Constrained Database Management (Final Report). Technical Report XAIT-89-02, Xerox Advanced Information Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, August 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Chen. Declarative Specification and Evaluation of Database Updates. In C. Delobel, M. Kifer, and Y. Masunaga, editors, LNCS 566: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Deductive and Object Oriented Databases, pages 147–166, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W. Chen. Programming with Logical Queries, Bulk Updates, and Hypothetical Reasoning. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 9(4):587–599, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K.L. Clark. Negation as Failure. In H. Gallaire and J. Minker, editors, Logic and Data Bases, pages 56–65, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L.M.L. Delcambre and J.N. Etheredge. The Relational Procedural Language: A Production Language for Relational Databases. In Proc. of the Second Int. Conf. on Expert Database Systems, pages 333–351, 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Digital Equipment Corporation. Rdb/VMS — SQL Reference Manual, November 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A.A.A. Fernandes, M.H. Williams, and N.W. Patton. A Logic-Based Integration of Active and Deductive Databases. New Generation Computing, 15(2): 205–244, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    N. Gehani and H.V. Jagadish. Ode as an Active Database: Constraints and Triggers. In Proc. of the Seventeenth Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 327–336, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. Gervasi and A. Raffaetà. Integrating Active Rules in U-Datalog. In Moreno Falaschi, Marisa Navarro, and Alberto Policriti, editors, Proc. of the APPIAGULP-PRODE '97 Joint Conf. on Declarative Programming, pages 117–128, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Gottlob, G. Moerkotte, and V.S. Subrahmanian. The PARK Semantics for Active Rules. In LNCS 1057: Proc. of the Fifth Int. Conf. on Extending Database Technology, pages 35–55, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Gray and A. Reuter. Transaction Processing Concepts and Tecniques. Morgan-Kaufmann, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    E. Hanson. Rule Condition Testing and Action Execution in Ariel. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 49–58, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirkwood. Sybase Architecture and Administration. Prentice-Hall, 1993.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Kolaitis and C. Papadimitriou. Why Not Negation by Fixpoint? Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 43(1):125–144, 1991.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    J. W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, 1987.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    B. Ludäscher, W. May, and G. Lausen. Nested Transactions in a Logical Languages for Active Rules. In LNCS 1154: Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Logic in Databases, pages 197–222, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. Ludäscher, U. Hamann, and G. Lausen. A Logical Framework for Active Rules. In Proc. of the Seventh Int. Conf. on Management of Data (COMAD), 1995.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S. Manchanda. Declarative Expression of Deductive Database Updates. In Proc. of the SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems, pages 93–100, 1989.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    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
  33. 33.
    D.R. McCarthy and U. Dayal. The Architecture of an Active Database Management System. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 215–224, 1989.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Montesi and R. Torlone. A Transaction Transformation Approach to Active Rule Processing. In Proc. of the Eleventh Int. Conf. on Data Engineering, pages 109–116, 1995.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Naqvi and S. Tsur. A Logical Language for Data and Knowledge Bases. Computer Science Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oracle Corp. Oracle 7 Server Concepts Manual, 7.3. Oracle Corp., 1996.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Stonebraker, A. Jhingran, J. Goh, and S. Potamianos. On Rules, Procedures, Caching and Views in Data Base Systems. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 281–290, 1990.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Stonebraker and G. Kemnitz. The POSTGRES Next-Generation Database Management System. Communications of the ACM, 34(10):78–92, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    L. Tanca. (Re-)Action in Deductive Databases. In Proc. of the Second Int. Workshop on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, pages 55–61, 1990.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Widom, R.J. Cochrane, and B.G. Lindsay. Implementing Set-oriented Production Rules as an Extension to Starburst. In Proc. of the Seventeenth Int. Conf. on Very Large Data Bases, pages 275–285, 1991.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    C.A. Wichert and B. Freitag. Capturing Database Dynamics by Deferred Updates. In Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Logic Programming, 1997.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. Widom and S. Finkelstein. Set-oriented Production Rules in Relational Databases. In Proc. of the ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. on Management of Data, pages 259–270, 1990.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    C. Zaniolo. A Unified Semantics for Active and Deductive Databases. In Proc. of the First Int. Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, pages 271–287, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisa Bertino
    • 1
  • Barbara Catania
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Gervasi
    • 2
  • Alessandra Raffaetà
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze dell'InformazioneUniversity of MilanoMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations