5,469 research outputs found

    Blazes: Coordination Analysis for Distributed Programs

    Full text link
    Distributed consistency is perhaps the most discussed topic in distributed systems today. Coordination protocols can ensure consistency, but in practice they cause undesirable performance unless used judiciously. Scalable distributed architectures avoid coordination whenever possible, but under-coordinated systems can exhibit behavioral anomalies under fault, which are often extremely difficult to debug. This raises significant challenges for distributed system architects and developers. In this paper we present Blazes, a cross-platform program analysis framework that (a) identifies program locations that require coordination to ensure consistent executions, and (b) automatically synthesizes application-specific coordination code that can significantly outperform general-purpose techniques. We present two case studies, one using annotated programs in the Twitter Storm system, and another using the Bloom declarative language.Comment: Updated to include additional materials from the original technical report: derivation rules, output stream label

    Believe It or Not: Adding Belief Annotations to Databases

    Full text link
    We propose a database model that allows users to annotate data with belief statements. Our motivation comes from scientific database applications where a community of users is working together to assemble, revise, and curate a shared data repository. As the community accumulates knowledge and the database content evolves over time, it may contain conflicting information and members can disagree on the information it should store. For example, Alice may believe that a tuple should be in the database, whereas Bob disagrees. He may also insert the reason why he thinks Alice believes the tuple should be in the database, and explain what he thinks the correct tuple should be instead. We propose a formal model for Belief Databases that interprets users' annotations as belief statements. These annotations can refer both to the base data and to other annotations. We give a formal semantics based on a fragment of multi-agent epistemic logic and define a query language over belief databases. We then prove a key technical result, stating that every belief database can be encoded as a canonical Kripke structure. We use this structure to describe a relational representation of belief databases, and give an algorithm for translating queries over the belief database into standard relational queries. Finally, we report early experimental results with our prototype implementation on synthetic data.Comment: 17 pages, 10 figure

    Identification of Design Principles

    Get PDF
    This report identifies those design principles for a (possibly new) query and transformation language for the Web supporting inference that are considered essential. Based upon these design principles an initial strawman is selected. Scenarios for querying the Semantic Web illustrate the design principles and their reflection in the initial strawman, i.e., a first draft of the query language to be designed and implemented by the REWERSE working group I4

    A General Framework for Representing, Reasoning and Querying with Annotated Semantic Web Data

    Full text link
    We describe a generic framework for representing and reasoning with annotated Semantic Web data, a task becoming more important with the recent increased amount of inconsistent and non-reliable meta-data on the web. We formalise the annotated language, the corresponding deductive system and address the query answering problem. Previous contributions on specific RDF annotation domains are encompassed by our unified reasoning formalism as we show by instantiating it on (i) temporal, (ii) fuzzy, and (iii) provenance annotations. Moreover, we provide a generic method for combining multiple annotation domains allowing to represent, e.g. temporally-annotated fuzzy RDF. Furthermore, we address the development of a query language -- AnQL -- that is inspired by SPARQL, including several features of SPARQL 1.1 (subqueries, aggregates, assignment, solution modifiers) along with the formal definitions of their semantics

    Introducing Dynamic Behavior in Amalgamated Knowledge Bases

    Full text link
    The problem of integrating knowledge from multiple and heterogeneous sources is a fundamental issue in current information systems. In order to cope with this problem, the concept of mediator has been introduced as a software component providing intermediate services, linking data resources and application programs, and making transparent the heterogeneity of the underlying systems. In designing a mediator architecture, we believe that an important aspect is the definition of a formal framework by which one is able to model integration according to a declarative style. To this purpose, the use of a logical approach seems very promising. Another important aspect is the ability to model both static integration aspects, concerning query execution, and dynamic ones, concerning data updates and their propagation among the various data sources. Unfortunately, as far as we know, no formal proposals for logically modeling mediator architectures both from a static and dynamic point of view have already been developed. In this paper, we extend the framework for amalgamated knowledge bases, presented by Subrahmanian, to deal with dynamic aspects. The language we propose is based on the Active U-Datalog language, and extends it with annotated logic and amalgamation concepts. We model the sources of information and the mediator (also called supervisor) as Active U-Datalog deductive databases, thus modeling queries, transactions, and active rules, interpreted according to the PARK semantics. By using active rules, the system can efficiently perform update propagation among different databases. The result is a logical environment, integrating active and deductive rules, to perform queries and update propagation in an heterogeneous mediated framework.Comment: Other Keywords: Deductive databases; Heterogeneous databases; Active rules; Update
    corecore