Feasibility Conditions and Preference Criteria in Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Databases

Recently there has been an increasing interest in integrity constraints associated with relational databases and in inconsistent databases, i.e. databases which do not satisfy integrity constraints. In the presence of inconsistencies two main techniques have been proposed: compute repairs, i.e. minimal set of insertion and deletion operations, called database repairs, and compute consistent answers, i.e. identify the sets of atoms which we can assume true, false and undefined without modifying the database. In this paper feasibility conditions and preference criteria are introduced which, associated with integrity constraints, allow to restrict the number of repairs and to increase the power of queries over inconsistent databases. Moreover, it is studied the complexity of computing repairs and the expressive power of relational queries over databases with integrity constraints, feasibility conditions and preference criteria.

[1]  V. S. Subrahmanian,et al.  Reasoning in Inconsistent Knowledge Bases , 1995, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[2]  Sergio Greco,et al.  A Logic Programming Approach to the Integration, Repairing and Querying of Inconsistent Databases , 2001, ICLP.

[3]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  Integrating data from possibly inconsistent databases , 1996, Proceedings First IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems.

[4]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases , 1999, PODS '99.

[5]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Answer Sets for Prioritized Logic Programs , 1997, ILPS.

[6]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Querying with Intrinsic Preferences , 2002, EDBT.

[7]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Disjunctive datalog , 1997, TODS.

[8]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Specifying and Querying Database Repairs using Logic Programs with Exceptions , 2000, FQAS.

[9]  Andrea Calì,et al.  Data integration under integrity constraints , 2004, Inf. Syst..

[10]  Jef Wijsen,et al.  Condensed Representation of Database Repairs for Consistent Query Answering , 2003, ICDT.

[11]  Jinxin Lin,et al.  A Semantics for Reasoning Consistently in the Presence of Inconsistency , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Victor W. Marek,et al.  Revision Programming , 1998, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Principles Of Database And Knowledge-Base Systems , 1979 .

[14]  Andrea Calì,et al.  On the decidability and complexity of query answering over inconsistent and incomplete databases , 2003, PODS.

[15]  Sergio Greco,et al.  Querying Inconsistent Databases , 2000, LPAR.

[16]  Sergio Greco,et al.  Preferred repairs for inconsistent databases , 2003, Seventh International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium, 2003. Proceedings..

[17]  Sergio Greco,et al.  A Logical Framework for Querying and Repairing Inconsistent Databases , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[18]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  Foundations of Databases , 1994 .

[19]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Preferred Answer Sets for Extended Logic Programs , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Sergio Greco,et al.  Search and Optimization Problems in Datalog , 2002, Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond.

[21]  Gio Wiederhold,et al.  Flexible relation: an approach for integrating data from multiple, possibly inconsistent databases , 1995, Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Data Engineering.

[22]  David S. Johnson,et al.  A Catalog of Complexity Classes , 1991, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume A: Algorithms and Complexity.

[23]  Alan L. Selman,et al.  A Taxonomy of Complexity Classes of Functions , 1994, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..