Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterizing and Computing Semantically Correct Answers from Databases with Annotated Logic and Answer Sets

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Semantics in Databases (SiD 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 2582))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A relational database may not satisfy certain integrity constraints (ICs) for several reasons. However most likely most of the information in it is still consistent with the ICs. The answers to queries that are consistent with the ICs can be considered sematically correct answers, and are characterized [2] as ordinary answers that can be obtained from every minimally repaired version of the database. In this paper we address the problem of specifying those repaired versions as the minimal models of a theory written in Annotated Predicate Logic [27]. It is also shown how to specify database repairs using disjunctive logic program with annotation arguments and a classical stable model semantics. Those programs are then used to compute consistent answers to general first order queries. Both the annotated logic and the logic programming approaches work for any set of universal and referential integrity constraints. Optimizations of the logic programs are also analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abiteboul, S., Hull, R. and Vianu, V. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. and Chomicki, J. Consistent Query Answers in Inconsistent Databases. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (ACM PODS’99), 1999, pp. 68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. and Kifer, M. Applications of Annotated Predicate Calculus to Querying Inconsistent Databases. In ‘Computational Logic-CL2000’ Stream: 6th International Conference on Rules and Objects in Databases (DOOD’2000). Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1861, 2000, pp. 926–941.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. and Chomicki, J. Specifying and Querying Database Repairs using Logic Programs with Exceptions. In Flexible Query Answering Systems. Recent Developments, H. L. Larsen, J. Kacprzyk, S. Zadrozny, H. Christiansen (eds.), Springer, 2000, pp. 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. and Chomicki, J. Scalar Aggregation in FD-Inconsistent Databases. In Database Theory-ICDT 2001, Springer, LNCS 1973, 2001, pp. 39–53.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. and Chomicki, J. Answer Sets for Consistent Query Answers. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baral, C. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barcelo, P. and Bertossi, L. Repairing Databases with Annotated Predicate Logic. In Proc. Nineth International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR’2002), Special session: Changing and Integrating Information: From Theory to Practice, S. Benferhat and E. Giunchiglia (eds.), 2002, pp. 160–170.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barcelo, P. and Bertossi, L. Logic Programs for Querying Inconsistent Databases. Proc. Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL03), Springer LNCS 2562, 2003, pp. 208–222.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ben-Eliyahu, R. and Dechter, R. Propositional Semantics for Disjunctive Logic Programs. Annals of Mathematics in Artificial Intelligence, 1994, 12:53–87.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J., Cortes, A. and Gutierrez, C. Consistent Answers from Integrated Data Sources. In ‘Flexible Query Answering Systems’, Proc. of the 5th International Conference, FQAS 2002. T. Andreasen, A. Motro, H. Christiansen, H. L. Larsen (eds.). Springer LNAI 2522, 2002, pp. 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blair, H. A. and Subrahmanian, V. S. Paraconsistent Logic Programming. Theoretical Computer Science, 1989, 68:135–154.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Buccafurri, F., Leone, N. and Rullo, P. Enhancing Disjunctive Datalog by Constraints. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2000, 12(5):845–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Celle, A. and Bertossi, L. Querying Inconsistent Databases: Algorithms and Implementation. In ‘Computational Logic-CL 2000’, J. Lloyd et al. (eds.). Stream: 6th International Conference on Rules and Objects in Databases (DOOD’2000). Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1861, 2000, pp. 942–956.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chomicki, J. and Marcinkowski, J. On the Computational Complexity of Consistent Query Answers. Submitted in 2002 (CoRR paper cs.DB/0204010).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Chou, T. and Winslett, M. A Model-Based Belief Revision System. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 1994, 12:157–208.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Damasio, C. V. and Pereira, L. M. A Survey on Paraconsistent Semantics for Extended Logic Programas. In Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol. 2, D. M. Gabbay and Ph. Smets (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998, pp. 241–320.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G. and Voronkov, A. Complexity and Expressive Power of Logic Programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 2001, 33(3): 374–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. Propositional Circumscription and Extended Closed World Assumption are Πp 2-complete. Theoretical Computer Science, 1993, 114, pp. 231–245.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G. and Scarcello, F. A Deductive System for Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Proc. LPNMR’97, Springer LNAI 1265, 1997, pp. 364–375.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eiter, T., Faber, W.; Leone, N. and Pfeifer, G. Declarative Problem-Solving in DLV. In Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, J. Minker (ed.), Kluwer, 2000, pp. 79–103.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fagin, R., Kuper, G., Ullman, J. and Vardi, M. Updating Logical Databases. In Advances in Computing Research, JAI Press, 1986, Vol. 3, pp. 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programming. In Logic Programming, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium, R. A. Kowalski and K. A. Bowen (eds.), MIT Press, 1988, pp. 1070–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing, 1991, 9:365–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Giannotti, F., Greco, S.; Sacca, D. and Zaniolo, C. Programming with Nondeterminism in Deductive Databases. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1997, 19(3–4).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Greco, G., Greco, S. and Zumpano, E. A Logic Programming Approach to the Integration, Repairing and Querying of Inconsistent Databases. In Proc. 17th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP’01, Ph. Codognet (ed.), LNCS 2237, Springer, 2001, pp. 348–364.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kifer, M. and Lozinskii, E. L. A Logic for Reasoning with Inconsistency. Journal of Automated reasoning, 1992, 9(2):179–215.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Kifer, M. and Subrahmanian, V. S. Theory of Generalized Annotated Logic Programming and its Applications. Journal of Logic Programming, 1992, 12(4):335–368.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Leone, N., Rullo, P. and Scarcello, F. Disjunctive Stable Models: Unfounded Sets, Fixpoint Semantics, and Computation. Information and Computation, 1997, 135(2):69–112.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Lloyd, J. W. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer Verlag, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Marek, V. W. and Truszczynski, M. Revision Programming. Theoretical Computer Science, 1998, 190(2):241–277.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Pradhan, S. Reasoning with Conflicting Information in Artificial Intelligence and Database Theory. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Reiter, R. Towards a Logical Reconstruction of Relational Database Theory. In On Conceptual Modelling, M. L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulos, J. W. Schmidt (eds.), Springer, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sagonas, K. F., Swift, T. and Warren, D. S. XSB as an Efficient Deductive Database Engine. In Proc. of the 1994 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, ACM Press, 1994, pp. 442–453.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Winslett, M. Reasoning about Action using a Possible Models Approach. In Proc. Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’88), 1988, pp. 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Pablo Barceló

  2. School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

    Leopoldo Bertossi & Loreto Bravo

Authors
  1. Pablo Barceló
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leopoldo Bertossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Loreto Bravo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Herzberg Building, 1125 Colonel By Drive, K1S 5B6, Ottawa, Canada

    Leopoldo Bertossi

  2. Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 127, 1364, Budapest, Hungary

    Gyula O. H. Katona

  3. Department of Information Systems, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand

    Klaus-Dieter Schewe

  4. Institute of Computer Science, Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, P.O. Box 10 13 44, 03013, Cottbus, Germany

    Bernhard Thalheim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Barceló, P., Bertossi, L., Bravo, L. (2003). Characterizing and Computing Semantically Correct Answers from Databases with Annotated Logic and Answer Sets. In: Bertossi, L., Katona, G.O.H., Schewe, KD., Thalheim, B. (eds) Semantics in Databases. SiD 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2582. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36596-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36596-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-00957-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36596-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation