Abstract
The dynamics of belief and knowledge is one of the major components of any autonomous system that should be able to incorporate new pieces of information. We show that knowledge base dynamics has interesting connection with kernel change via hitting set and abduction. The approach extends and integrates standard techniques for efficient query answering and integrity checking. The generation of hitting set is carried out through a hyper tableaux calculus and magic set that is focussed on the goal of minimality. Many different view update algorithms have been proposed in the literature to address this problem. The present paper provides a comparative study of view update algorithms in rational approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
1 a ground instantiation of a definite program P is the set of clauses obtained by substituting terms in the Herbrand Universe for variables in P in all possible ways
References
Agrawal S et al (2008) Automated selection of materialized views and indexes in SQL databases. In: International conference on very large data bases (VLDB), pp 496–515
Alchourron CE et al (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symb Log 50 :510–530
Alexandre L, Coelho J (2011) Filtering XML content for publication and presentation on the web. In: ICDIM, pp 85–89
Aliseda A (2006) Abductive resoning logic investigations into discovery and explanation. Springer book series, vol 330
Amgoud L, Vesic S (2011) A new approach for preference-based argumentation frameworks. Ann Math Artif Intell 63(2):149–183
Aravindan C, Dung PM (1994) Belief dynamics, abduction, and database. In: JELIA, pp 66–85
Aravindan C (1995) Dynamics of belief: epistmology, abduction and database update. Phd Thesis, AIT
Aravindan C, Baumgartner P (1997) A rational and efficient algorithm for view deletion in databases. In: ILPS
Baumgartner P et al (1997) Semantically guided theorem proving for diagnosis applications. IJCAI 1:460–465
Bauer A, Lehne W (2003) On solving the view selection problem in distributed data warehouse architectures. In: SSDBM, pp 43–57
Behrend A, Manthey R (2008) A transformation-based approach to view updating in stratifiable deductive databases. In: FoIKS, pp 253–271
Bellahsene Z et al (2010) A cooperative approach to view selection and placement in P2P systems. In: OTM, pp 515–522
Bentahar J et al (2008) Agent-based communities of web services: an argumentation-driven approach. SOCA 2(4):219–238
Bentahar J et al (2010) Using argumentation to model and deploy agent-based B2B applications. Knowl Based Syst 23(7):677–692
Bentahar J et al (2010) A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation. Artif Intell Rev 33(3):211–259
Bessant B et al (1998) Combining nonmonotonic reasoning and belief revision: a practical approach. In: AIMSA, pp 115–128
Braga D et al (2006) Efficient integrity checking over XML documents. In: EDBT workshops, pp 206–219
Biskup J (2012) Inference-usability confinement by maintaining inference-proof views of an information system. IJCSE 7(1):17–37
Caroprese L et al (2012) The view-update problem for indefinite databases. In: JELIA
Calvanese D et al (2012) View-based query answering in description logics semantics and complexity. J Comput Syst Sci 78(1):26–46
Caroprese L et al (2007) View updating through active integrity constraints. In: ICLP, pp 430–431
Ceri S et al (1994) Automatic generation of production rules for integrity maintenance. ACM Trans Database Syst 19(3):367–422
Chaves LWF et al (2009) Towards materialized view selection for distributed databases. In: EDBT, pp 1088–1109
Chen H, Liao H (2010) A comparative study of view update problem. In: DSDE, pp 83–89
Chen IA et al (1995) An execution model for limited ambiguity rules and its application to derived data update. ACM Trans Database Syst 20(4):365–413
Chirkova R (2002) The view-selection problem has an exponential-time lower bound for conjunctive queries and views. In: ACM symposium on principles of database systems (PODS), pp 159–168
Christiansen H, Martinenghi D (2006) On simplification of database integrity constraints. Fundam Inform 71(4):371–417
Christiansen H, Rekouts M (2007) Integrity checking and maintenance with active rules in XML databases. In: BNCOD Workshops, pp 59–67
Christiansen H, Dahl V (2009) Abductive logic grammars. In: WoLLIC, pp 170–181
Coelho J, Florido M (2007) Type-based static and dynamic website verification. In: ICIW, pp 32
Cong G et al (2012) On the complexity of view update analysis and its application to annotation propagation. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 24(3):506–519
Console L et al (1995) The role of abduction in database view updating. J Intell Inf Syst 4:261–280
Decker H (1997) One abductive logic programming procedure for two kind of updates. In: Proceedings workshop DINAMICS’97 at international logic programming symposium
Delhibabu R, Lakemeyer G (2013) A rational and efficient algorithm for view revision in databases. Appl Math Inf Sci 7(3)
Delhibabu R (2014) An abductive framework for knowledge base dynamics. Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences (accepted)
Delhibabu R, Behrend A (2014) A new rational algorithm for view updating in relational databases. Appl Intell (accepted)
Delgrande JP, Peppas P (2011) Revising horn theories. In: IJCAI, pp 839–844
Dhote CA, Ali MS (2009) Materialized view selection in data warehousing: a survey. J Appl Sci:401–414
Dong G, Topor RW (1992) Incremental evaluation of datalog queries. In: Database theory - ICDT, vol 646, pp 282–296
Domínguez E et al (2002) Integrity constraint enforcement by means of trigger templates. In: ADVIS, pp 54–64
Domínguez E et al (2008) Model-driven, view-based evolution of relational databases. In: DEXA, pp 822–836
Eiter T, Makino K (2007) On computing all abductive explanations from a propositional Horn theory. J ACM 54(5)
Farré C et al (2003) Handling existential derived predicates in view updating. In: ICLP, pp 148–162
Farré C et al (2004) A new approach for checking schema validation properties. In: DEXA, pp 77–86
Falappa MA et al (2012) Prioritized and non-prioritized multiple change on belief bases. J Philo Log 41(1):77–113
Falappa MA et al (2013) Stratified belief bases revision with argumentative inference. J Philos Log 42(1):161–193
Ferme EL, Hansson SO (2011) AGM 25 years - twenty-five years of research in belief change. J Philos Log 40(2):295–331
Fraternali P, Paraboschi S (1993) A review of repairing techniques for integrity maintenance. In: RIDS, pp 333–346
Gertz M (1994) Specifying reactive integrity control for active databases. In: RIDE, pp 62–70
Guessoum A, Lloyd JW (1990) Updating knowledge bases. New Gener Comput 8(1):71–89
Gupta A et al (1992) Counting solutions to the view maintenance problem. In: Workshop on deductive databases, JICSLP, pp 185–194
Gupta A et al (1993) Maintaining views incrementally. In: ACM SIGMOD, pp 157–176
Halevy AY (2001) Answering queries using views: a survey. VLDB 10(4):270ï£.1ï£.74
Hansson SO (1997) A textbook of belief dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Hegner SJ (2002) Uniqueness of update strategies for database views. In: FoIKS, pp 230–249
Hegner SJ (2007) A model of database components and their interconnection based upon communicating views. In: EJC, pp 79–99
Heras S et al (2013) Research opportunities for argumentation in social networks. Artif Intell Rev 39(1):39–62
Herzig A, Rifi O (1999) Propositional belief base update and minimal change. Artif Intell 115(1):107–138
Horng JT et al (2003) Applying evolutionary algorithms to materialized view selection in a data warehouse. Soft Comput 7(8):574–591
Jackson EK, Schulte W (2008) Model generation for horn logic with stratified negation. FORTE
Kakas AC, Mancarella P (1990) Database updates through abduction. In: VLDB conference, pp 650–661
Keller A (1985) Updating relational databases through views. Phd Thesis
Kogalovsky MR (2012) Ontology-based data access systems. Program Comput Soft 38(4):167–182
Konieczny S (2011) Dynamics of beliefs. In: SUM, pp 61–74
Küchenhoff (1991) On the efficient computation of the difference between consecutive database states. In: DOOD, pp 478– 492
Lakemeyer G (1995) A logical account of relevance. IJCAI 1:853–861
Langlois M et al (2008) Horn complements: towards horn-to-horn belief revision. In: AAAI, pp 466–471
Laurent D et al (1998) Updating intensional predicates in deductive databases. Data Knowl Eng 26(1):37–70
Lee M, Hammer J (2001) Speeding up materialized view selection in data warehouses using a randomized algorithm. Int J Cooperative Inf Syst 10(3):327–343
Liberatore P (1997) The complexity of belief update (Extended in 2003)
Liberatore P, Schaerf M (2004) The compactness of belief revision and update operators. Fundam Inform 62(3–4):377–393
Lobo J, Trajcevski G (1997) Minimal and consistent evolution of knowledge bases. J Appl Non-Classical Logics 7(1):117–146
Li X (2010) Materialized view selection: a survey, IGI book chapter. In: View management techniques and their application to data stream management. 10.4018/978-1-60566-816-1.ch005
Lu J et al (1995) Efficient maintenance of materialized mediated views. In: ACM SIGMOD, pp 340–351
Lu W (1999) View updates in disjunctive deductive databases based on SLD-resolution. In: KRDB, pp 31–35
Maabout S (1998) Maintaining and restoring database consistency with update rules. In: Workshop DYNAMICS, JICSLP
Makinson D (1997) Screened revision. Theoria 63:14–23
Mami I et al (2011) Modeling view selection as a constraint satisfaction problem. In: DEXA, vol 6861, pp 396– 410
Mami I, Bellahsene Z (2012) A survey of view selection methods. SIGMOD Rec 41(1):20–29
Martinenghi D, Christiansen H (2005) Efficient integrity checking for databases with recursive views. In: ADBIS, vol 3631, pp 109–124
Martinez MV et al (2013) A general framework for reasoning on inconsistency. Springer Briefs in Computer Science vol 7, pp 1–45
Mayol E, Teniente E (1993) Incorporating modification requests in updating consistent knowledge bases. In: 4th international workshop on the deductive approach to information systems and databases, pp 275–300
Mayol E, Teniente E (1999) A survey of current methods for integrity constraint maintenance and view updating. In: ER (Workshops), pp 62–73
Moerkotte G, Lockemann PC (1991) Reactive consistency control in deductive databases. ACM Trans Database Syst 16(4):670–702
Mota-Herranz L et al (2000) Transaction trees for knowledge revision. In: FQAS, pp 182–191
Nayak A et al (2006) Forgetting and knowledge update. In: Australian conference on artificial intelligence, pp 131– 140
Nayak A (2011) Is revision a special kind of update. In: Australasian conference on artificial intelligence, pp 432–441
Nebel B (1998) How hard is it to revise a belief base. In: Handbook of defeasible reasoning and uncertainty management systems, pp 77–145
Papini O (2000) Knowledge-base revision. Knowl Eng Rev 15(4):339–370
Qi G, Yang F (2008) Survey of revision approaches in description logics. In: Description logics
Saha D, Ramakrishnan CR (2003) Incremental evaluation of tabled logic programs. In: ICLP, pp 392–406
Sakama C, Inoue K (2003) An abductive framework for computing knowledge base updates. TPLP 3(6):671–713
Salman M et al (2012) Database integrity mechanism between OLTP and offline data. In: ACIIDS, vol 2, pp 371–380
Schewe KD (1996) Tailoring consistent specializations as a natural approach to consistency enforcement. In: 6th international workshop on foundations of models and languages for data and objects: integrity in databases
Schewe KD (1998) Consistency enforcement in entity-relationship and object oriented models. Data Knowledge Eng 28(1):121–140
Schewe KD (2000) Controlled automation of consistency enforcement. In: ASE, pp 265–268
Schulte O (1999) Minimal belief change and pareto-optimality. In: Australian joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 144–155
Segerberg K (1998) Irrevocable belief revision in dynamic doxastic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39(3):287–306
Staudt M, Jarke M (1996) Incremental maintenance of externally materialized views. VLDB J 75ï£.1ï£.7
Teniente E, Olive A (1995) Updating knowledge bases while maintaining their consistency. VLDB J 4(2):193–241
Urpí, Olivé A (1992) A method for change computation in deductive databases. In: VLDB, 225ï£.1ï£.77
Wrobel S (1995) First order theory refinement. In: IOS frontier in AI and application series
Wüthrich B (1993) On updates and inconsistency repairing in knowledge bases. In: ICDE, pp 608–615
Yang J et al (1997) Algorithms for materialized view design in data warehousing environment. In: VLDB, pp 136–145
Zhang C, Yang Y (1999) Genetic algorithm for materialized view selection in data warehouse environments. In: DaWaK, vol 1676, pp 116–125
Zhou J et al (2007) Dynamic materialized views. In: ICDE, pp 526–535
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the support of RWTH Aachen, where he is visiting scholar with an Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation Window India4EU by the European Commission when the paper was written. I would like to thanks Chandrabose Aravindan and Gerhard Lakemeyer both my Indian and Germany PhD supervisor, give encourage to write the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix :
Appendix :
Proof of Theorem 1
Sound and Completeness are trivially to shown from the definition. □
Proof of Lemma 1
-
1.
The fact that \(\nvdash \neg \alpha \) and there exists a KB - closed locally minimal abductive explanation for α wrt K B I , it is clear that there exists at least one α- kernel of KB. Suppose Δ (\({\Delta }\in {\Delta }^{+} \cup {\Delta }^{-}\)) is empty (i.e., \(KB_{I}\vdash \neg \alpha \)), then the required result follows immediately. If not, since Δ is a locally minimal abductive explanation, there exists a minimal subset \(KB_{I}^{\prime }\subseteq KB_{I}\), s.t. Δ is minimal abductive explanation of α wrt \(KB_{I}^{\prime }\). Since, Δ is KB-closed, it is not difficult to see that \(KB_{I}^{\prime }\cup {\Delta }^{+} \cup {\Delta }^{-}\) is a α - kernel of KB.
-
2.
Since X is a α - kernel of KB and Δ is the set of all abducibles in X, it follows that \({\Delta }^{+} \cup {\Delta }^{-}\) is a minimal abductive explanation of Δ wrt \(X\backslash {\Delta }^{-} \cup {\Delta }^{+}\). It is obvious that \({\Delta }^{+} \cup {\Delta }^{-}\) is KB- closed, and so Δ is a KB-closed locally minimal abductive explanation for α wrt K B I .
□
Proof of Theorem 2
Sound and Completeness are trivially to shown from the Algorithm 1. □
Proof of Lemma 2 and 5
-
1.
Consider a \({\Delta } ({\Delta }\in {\Delta }_{i} \cup {\Delta }_{j})\in S\). We need to show that Δ is generated by algorithm 3 at step 2. From lemma 1, it is clear that there exists a A-kernel X of D D B G s.t. \(X \cap EDB = {\Delta }_{j}\) and \(X \cup EDB = {\Delta }_{i}\). Since \(X \vdash A\), there must exist a successful derivation for A using only the elements of X as input clauses and similarly \(X \nvdash A\). Consequently Δ must have been constructed at step 2.
-
2.
Consider a \({\Delta }^{\prime }(({\Delta }^{\prime }\in {\Delta }_{i} \cup {\Delta }_{j})\in S^{\prime }\). Let \({\Delta }^{\prime }\) be constructed from a successful(unsuccessful) branch i via Δ i (Δ j ). Let X be the set of all input clauses used in the refutation i. Clearly \(X\vdash A\)(\(X\nvdash A\)). Further, there exists a minimal (wrt set-inclusion) subset Y of X that derives A (i.e. no proper subset of Y derives A). Let \({\Delta } = Y \cap EDB\) (\(Y \cup EDB\)). Since IDB does not(does) have any unit clauses, Y must contain some EDB facts, and so Δ is not empty (empty) and obviously \({\Delta }\subseteq {\Delta }^{\prime }\). But, Y need not (need) be a A-kernel for I D B G since Y is not ground in general. But it stands for several A-kernels with the same (different) EDB facts Δ in them. Thus, from lemma 1, Δ is a DDB-closed locally minimal abductive explanation for A wrt I D B G and is contained in \({\Delta }^{\prime }\).
-
3.
Since this proof easy to see materialized view update with minimal.
□
Proof of Lemma 3 and 6
-
1.
(Only if part) Suppose H is a minimal hitting set for S. Since \(S \subseteq S^{\prime }\), it follows that \(H \subseteq \bigcup S^{\prime }\). Further, H hits every element of \(S^{\prime }\), which is evident from the fact that every element of \(S^{\prime }\) contains an element of S. Hence H is a hitting set for \(S^{\prime }\). By the same arguments, it is not difficult to see that H is minimal for \(S^{\prime }\) too.
(If part) Given that H is a minimal hitting set for \(S^{\prime }\), we have to show that it is a minimal hitting set for S too. Assume that there is an element E∈H that is not in \(\bigcup S\). This means that E is selected from some \(Y \in S^{\prime }\backslash S\). But Y contains an element of S, say X. Since X is also a member of \(S^{\prime }\), one member of X must appear in H. This implies that two elements have been selected from Y and hence H is not minimal. This is a contradiction and hence \(H \subseteq \bigcup S\). Since \(S \subseteq S^{\prime }\), it is clear that H hits every element in S, and so H is a hitting set for S. It remains to be shown that H is minimal. Assume the contrary, that a proper subset \(H^{\prime }\) of H is a hitting set for S. Then from the proof of the only if part, it follows that \(H^{\prime }\) is a hitting set for \(S^{\prime }\) too, and contradicts the fact that H is a minimal hitting set for \(S^{\prime }\) . Hence, H must be a minimal hitting set for S.
-
2.
(If part) Given that H is a hitting set for \(S^{\prime }\), we have to show that it is a hitting set for S too. First of all, observe that \(\bigcup S = \bigcup S^{\prime }\), and so \(H \subseteq \bigcup S\). Moreover, by definition, for every non-empty member X of \(S^{\prime }\), \(H \cap X\) is not empty. Since \(S \subseteq S^{\prime }\), it follows that H is a hitting set for S too.
(Only if part) Suppose H is a hitting set for S. As observed above, \(H \subseteq \bigcup S^{\prime }\). By definition, for every non-empty member X∈S, \(X \cap H\) is not empty. Since every member of \(S^{\prime }\) contains a member of S, it is clear that H hits every member of \(S^{\prime }\), and hence a hitting set for \(S^{\prime }\).
□
Proof of Lemma 4 and 7
Proof of Lemma 4 and 7. Follows from the lemma 3, 4 (minimal test) and 6, 7 (materialized view) of [11] □
Proof of Theorem 3
Follows from Lemma 3 and Theorem 2. □
Proof of Theorem 4
Follows from Lemma 6 and Theorem 2. □
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Delhibabu, R. Comparative study of view update algorithms in rational choice theory. Appl Intell 42, 447–465 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0580-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-014-0580-7