Measure-Based Inconsistency-Tolerant Maintenance of Database Integrity

[EN] To maintain integrity, constraint violations should be prevented or repaired. However, it may not be feasible to avoid inconsistency, or to repair all violations at once. Based on an abstract concept of violation measures, updates and repairs can be checked for keeping inconsistency bounded, such that integrity violations are guaranteed to never get out of control. This measure-based approach goes beyond conventional methods that are not meant to be applied in the presence of inconsistency. It also generalizes recently introduced concepts of inconsistency-tolerant integrity maintenance.Partially supported by FEDER and the Spanish grants TIN2009-14460-C03 and TIN2010-17139Decker, H. (2013). Measure-Based Inconsistency-Tolerant Maintenance of Database Integrity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7693:149-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36008-4_7S1491737693Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley (1995)Abiteboul, S., Vianu, V.: A transaction-based approach to relational database specification. JACM 36(4), 758–789 (1989)Afrati, F., Kolaitis, P.: Repair checking in inconsistent databases: algorithms and complexity. In: 12th ICDT, pp. 31–41. ACM Press (2009)Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: PODS 1999, pp. 68–79. ACM Press (1999)Arieli, O., Denecker, M., Bruynooghe, M.: Distance semantics for database repair. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 50, 389–415 (2007)Arni-Bloch, N., Ralyté, J., Léonard, M.: Service–Driven Information Systems Evolution: Handling Integrity Constraints Consistency. In: Persson, A., Stirna, J. (eds.) PoEM 2009. LNBIP, vol. 39, pp. 191–206. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Bauer, H.: Maß- und Integrationstheorie, 2. Auflage. De Gruyter (1992)Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Quasi-Classical Logic: Non-Trivializable Classical Reasoning from Inconsistent Information. In: Froidevaux, C., Kohlas, J. (eds.) ECSQARU 1995. LNCS, vol. 946, pp. 44–51. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Bohanon, P., Fan, W., Flaster, M., Rastogi, R.: A Cost-Based Model and Effective Heuristic for Repairing Constraints by Value Modification. In: Proc. SIGMOD 2005, pp. 143–154. ACM Press (2005)Ceri, S., Cochrane, R., Widom, J.: Practical Applications of Triggers and Constraints: Success and Lingering Issues. In: Proc. 26th VLDB, pp. 254–262. Morgan Kaufmann (2000)Chakravarthy, U., Grant, J., Minker, J.: Logic-based Approach to Semantic Query Optimization. Transactions on Database Systems 15(2), 162–207 (1990)Chomicki, J.: Consistent Query Answering: Five Easy Pieces. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Christiansen, H., Martinenghi, D.: On simplification of database integrity constraints. Fundamenta Informaticae 71(4), 371–417 (2006)Clark, K.: Negation as Failure. In: Gallaire, H., Minker, J. (eds.) Logic and Data Bases, pp. 293–322. Plenum Press (1978)Curino, C., Moon, H., Deutsch, A., Zaniolo, C.: Update Rewriting and Integrity Constraint Maintenance in a Schema Evolution Support System: PRISM++. PVLDB 4, 117–128 (2010)Dawson, J.: The compactness of first-order logic: From Gödel to Lindström. History and Philosophy of Logic 14(1), 15–37 (1993)Decker, H.: The Range Form of Databases and Queries or: How to Avoid Floundering. In: Proc. 5th ÖGAI. Informatik-Fachberichte, vol. 208, pp. 114–123. Springer (1989)Decker, H.: Drawing Updates From Derivations. In: Kanellakis, P.C., Abiteboul, S. (eds.) ICDT 1990. LNCS, vol. 470, pp. 437–451. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Decker, H.: Extending Inconsistency-Tolerant Integrity Checking by Semantic Query Optimization. In: Bhowmick, S.S., Küng, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5181, pp. 89–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Decker, H.: Answers That Have Integrity. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6834, pp. 54–72. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Causes of the Violation of Integrity Constraints for Supporting the Quality of Databases. In: Murgante, B., Gervasi, O., Iglesias, A., Taniar, D., Apduhan, B.O. (eds.) ICCSA 2011, Part V. LNCS, vol. 6786, pp. 283–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Inconsistency-tolerant Integrity Checking based on Inconsistency Metrics. In: König, A., Dengel, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kise, K., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6882, pp. 548–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Partial Repairs that Tolerate Inconsistency. In: Eder, J., Bielikova, M., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ADBIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6909, pp. 389–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Decker, H.: Consistent Explanations of Answers to Queries in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases. In: Roth-Berghofer, T., Tintarev, N., Leake, D. (eds.) Explanation-aware Computing, Proc. IJCAI 2011 Workshop ExaCt 2011, pp. 71–80 (2011), http://exact2011.workshop.hm/index.phpDecker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Classifying integrity checking methods with regard to inconsistency tolerance. In: Proc. PPDP 2008, pp. 195–204. ACM Press (2008)Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Modeling, Measuring and Monitoring the Quality of Information. In: Heuser, C.A., Pernul, G. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5833, pp. 212–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Decker, H., Martinenghi, D.: Inconsistency-tolerant Integrity Checking. IEEE TKDE 23(2), 218–234 (2011)Decker, H., Muñoz-Escoí, F.D.: Revisiting and Improving a Result on Integrity Preservation by Concurrent Transactions. In: Meersman, R., Dillon, T., Herrero, P. (eds.) OTM 2010 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 6428, pp. 297–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Dung, P., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: Dialectic Proof Procedures for Assumption-based Admissible Argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 170(2), 114–159 (2006)Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Flum, J.: Finite Model Theory, 2nd edn. Springer (2006)Embury, S., Brandt, S., Robinson, J., Sutherland, I., Bisby, F., Gray, A., Jones, A., White, R.: Adapting integrity enforcement techniques for data reconciliation. Information Systems 26, 657–689 (2001)Enderton, H.: A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, 2nd edn. Academic Press (2001)Eiter, T., Fink, M., Greco, G., Lembo, D.: Repair localization for query answering from inconsistent databases. ACM TODS 33(2), article 10 (2008)Furfaro, F., Greco, S., Molinaro, C.: A three-valued semantics for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 51(2-4), 167–193 (2007)Grant, J., Hunter, A.: Measuring the Good and the Bad in Inconsistent Information. In: Proc. 22nd IJCAI, pp. 2632–2637 (2011)Greco, G., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: A logical framework for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. IEEE TKDE 15(6), 1389–1408 (2003)Guessoum, A., Lloyd, J.: Updating knowledge bases. New Generation Computing 8(1), 71–89 (1990)Guessoum, A., Lloyd, J.: Updating knowledge bases II. New Generation Computing 10(1), 73–100 (1991)Gupta, A., Sagiv, Y., Ullman, J., Widom, J.: Constraint checking with partial information. In: Proc. PODS 1994, pp. 45–55. ACM Press (1994)Hunter, A.: Measuring Inconsistency in Knowledge via Quasi-Classical Models. In: Proc. 18th AAAI &14th IAAI, pp. 68–73 (2002)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Approaches to Measuring Inconsistent Information. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T. (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance. LNCS, vol. 3300, pp. 191–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: Measuring inconsistency through minimal inconsistent sets. In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (Proc. 11th KR), pp. 358–366. AAAI Press (2008)Hunter, A., Konieczny, S.: On the measure of conflicts: Shapley Inconsistency Values. Artificial Intelligence 174, 1007–1026 (2010)Kakas, A., Mancarella, P.: Database updates through abduction. In: Proc. 16th VLDB, pp. 650–661. Morgan Kaufmann (1990)Kakas, A., Kowalski, R., Toni, F.: The role of Abduction in Logic Programming. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, J.A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 5, pp. 235–324. Oxford University Press (1998)Lee, S.Y., Ling, T.W.: Further improvements on integrity constraint checking for stratifiable deductive databases. In: Proc. VLDB 1996, pp. 495–505. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)Lehrer, K.: Relevant Deduction and Minimally Inconsistent Sets. Journal of Philosophy 3(2,3), 153–165 (1973)Mu, K., Liu, W., Jin, Z., Bell, D.: A Syntax-based Approach to Measuring the Degree of Inconsistency for Belief Bases. J. Approx. Reasoning 52(7), 978–999 (2011)Lloyd, J., Sonenberg, L., Topor, R.: Integrity constraint checking in stratified databases. J. Logic Programming 4(4), 331–343 (1987)Lozinskii, E.: Resolving contradictions: A plausible semantics for inconsistent systems. J. Automated Reasoning 12(1), 1–31 (1994)Ma, Y., Qi, G., Hitzler, P.: Computing inconsistency measure based on paraconsistent semantics. J. Logic Computation 21(6), 1257–1281 (2011)Martinenghi, D., Christiansen, H.: Transaction Management with Integrity Checking. In: Andersen, K.V., Debenham, J., Wagner, R. (eds.) DEXA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3588, pp. 606–615. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Martinenghi, D., Christiansen, H., Decker, H.: Integrity Checking and Maintenance in Relational and Deductive Databases and Beyond. In: Ma, Z. (ed.) Intelligent Databases: Technologies and Applications, pp. 238–285. IGI Global (2006)Martinez, M.V., Pugliese, A., Simari, G.I., Subrahmanian, V.S., Prade, H.: How Dirty Is Your Relational Database? An Axiomatic Approach. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 103–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Meyer, J., Wieringa, R. (eds.): Deontic Logic in Computer Science. Wiley (1994)Nicolas, J.M.: Logic for improving integrity checking in relational data bases. Acta Informatica 18, 227–253 (1982)Plexousakis, D., Mylopoulos, J.: Accommodating Integrity Constraints During Database Design. In: Apers, P.M.G., Bouzeghoub, M., Gardarin, G. (eds.) EDBT 1996. LNCS, vol. 1057, pp. 495–513. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Rahm, E., Do, H.: Data Cleaning: Problems and Current Approaches. Data Engineering Bulletin 23(4), 3–13 (2000)Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.: A theorem-proving approach to database integrity. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, pp. 313–362. Morgan Kaufmann (1988)Thimm, M.: Measuring Inconsistency in Probabilistic Knowledge Bases. In: Proc. 25th UAI, pp. 530–537. AUAI Press (2009)Vardi, M.: On the integrity of databases with incomplete information. In: Proc. 5th PODS, pp. 252–266. ACM Press (1986)Wijsen, J.: Database repairing using updates. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 30(3), 722–768 (2005

Towards Intelligent Databases

This article is a presentation of the objectives and techniques of deductive databases. The deductive approach to databases aims at extending with intensional definitions other database paradigms that describe applications extensionaUy. We first show how constructive specifications can be expressed with deduction rules, and how normative conditions can be defined using integrity constraints. We outline the principles of bottom-up and top-down query answering procedures and present the techniques used for integrity checking. We then argue that it is often desirable to manage with a database system not only database applications, but also specifications of system components. We present such meta-level specifications and discuss their advantages over conventional approaches

A Review of integrity constraint maintenance and view updating techniques

Two interrelated problems may arise when updating a database. On one hand, when an update is applied to the database, integrity constraints may become violated. In such case, the integrity constraint maintenance approach tries to obtain additional updates to keep integrity constraints satisfied. On the other hand, when updates of derived or view facts are requested, a view updating mechanism must be applied to translate the update request into correct updates of the underlying base facts. This survey reviews the research performed on integrity constraint maintenance and view updating. It is proposed a general framework to classify and to compare methods that tackle integrity constraint maintenance and/or view updating. Then, we analyze some of these methods in more detail to identify their actual contribution and the main limitations they may present.Postprint (published version

Upside-down Deduction

Over the recent years, several proposals were made to enhance database systems with automated reasoning. In this article we analyze two such enhancements based on meta-interpretation. We consider on the one hand the theorem prover Satchmo, on the other hand the Alexander and Magic Set methods. Although they achieve different goals and are based on distinct reasoning paradigms, Satchmo and the Alexander or Magic Set methods can be similarly described by upside-down meta-interpreters, i.e., meta-interpreters implementing one reasoning principle in terms of the other. Upside-down meta-interpretation gives rise to simple and efficient implementations, but has not been investigated in the past. This article is devoted to studying this technique. We show that it permits one to inherit a search strategy from an inference engine, instead of implementing it, and to combine bottom-up and top-down reasoning. These properties yield an explanation for the efficiency of Satchmo and a justification for the unconventional approach to top-down reasoning of the Alexander and Magic Set methods

Automatic generation of simplified weakest preconditions for integrity constraint verification

Given a constraint $c$ assumed to hold on a database $B$ and an update $u$ to be performed on $B$, we address the following question: will $c$ still hold after $u$ is performed? When $B$ is a relational database, we define a confluent terminating rewriting system which, starting from $c$ and $u$, automatically derives a simplified weakest precondition $wp(c,u)$ such that, whenever $B$ satisfies $wp(c,u)$, then the updated database $u(B)$ will satisfy $c$, and moreover $wp(c,u)$ is simplified in the sense that its computation depends only upon the instances of $c$ that may be modified by the update. We then extend the definition of a simplified $wp(c,u)$ to the case of deductive databases; we prove it using fixpoint induction