Terry Gaasterland, Parke Godfrey, Jack Minker, and Len Novik. A cooperative answering system. 1992.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Q1. Has a yellow car gone by This question itself can be modi ed as Q2. Has a car yellow gone by If so, where This is reasonable because in normal conversation the second part of Q2 will be asked in almost all cases. This is also a more generalized form of the original question. 13 [GGMN92] gives a more detailed survey of the above concepts. 4.2 Relaxation Gaasterland et al. GGM92b] provide various examples of relaxing the constraints in the query for a more cooperative answer. They provide a cooperative method of relaxation for expanding deductive database and logic programming ....

Terry Gaasterland, Parke Godfrey, Jack Minker, and Len Novik. A cooperative answering system. 1992.

....To this respect we consider views as retailing information, i.e. tuples from a relation. In fact, if views on one side can be considered as adding new query capabilities (adding new relations) as in the case of the Datalog family, here we also consider their aspect of hiding some knowledge as in [6]. 2. Prototyping applications. In fact we believe that this is one important role that deductive databases can play. In this case it is important to be able to modify the knowledge as fast as possible with no long recompilation and general proof of consistency. The above issues have led us to ....

....to Integrity Constraint Checking proposed in the literature so far, can in fact be also characterized according to the strategy the integrity checking methods are based on. Referring to this aspect, we introduce the distinction between interpretative (notably [12, 17] and compilative (notably [2, 3, 6]) approaches. In this respect our method, that integrates query answering with integrity checking, can be seen as an interpretative version of the modified program approach described in [3] and of the integrity constraint operators among theories of [2] This use of constraints as a means to ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Gaasterland, T., P. Godfrey, J. Minker and L. Novik. A Cooperative Answering System, Proceedings of the Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning Conference, edited by Andrei Voronkov, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 624, Springer--Verlag, St. Petersburg, Russia, pages 478--480, July 1992.

....to the restrictions. The restrictions in [ASDEMA85] are expressed by formulas as in this paper, while in ( AART95] ART96a, ART96b) are defined by another deductive database. The same use of constraints as a means to restrict the set of possible answers to a query on a database also appears in [GGMN92]. That method also adopts a compilative approach as in the above cited ones and constraints are expressed as denials. Within these aproaches, the theory describing the integrity constraints formulae can be considered as a view on the database, i.e. as a specification of the relevant facts. This ....

Gaasterland, T., P. Godfrey, J. Minker and L. Novik. A Cooperative Answering System, Proceedings of the Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning Conference, edited by Andrei Voronkov, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 624, Springer--Verlag, St. Petersburg, Russia, pages 478--480, July 1992.

.... Example 7 DB (modified) U; V) not unify( U; V] john; Y] john; V) green eyes(V) likes(X; Y) green eyes(Y) X; Y) green eyes(mary) blond hair(mary) blond hair(susan) The same use of constraints to restrict the set of possible answers to a query on a database also appears in [GGMN92]. That method also adopts a compilative approach as in the above cited ones and constraints are expressed as denials. The above methods of implementing view constraints all computes a new DB or Logic Program. While it is normal to re compile a program after an update, when a database is ....

Gaasterland, T., P. Godfrey, J. Minker and L. Novik. A Cooperative Answering System, Proceedings of the Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning Conference, edited by Andrei Voronkov, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 624, Springer--Verlag, St. Petersburg, Russia, pages 478--480, July 1992.

....by Gal [19] identifies the integrity constraints that guarantee failure, and provides a response to the user based on them. Gal also recognized the need to provide an MCS, but did not address how to identify the minimal subqueries with misconceptions. See the survey [17] for more background. In [18, 24] the design and implementation of a cooperative database system are discussed, in which miscon 8 A generalization lattice for a query is not necessarily finite, as is the subquery lattice. June 1997 Minimization in Cooperative Response Godfrey p. 7 of 46 breadth first depth first top down ....

T. Gaasterland, P. Godfrey, J. Minker, and L. Novik. A cooperative answering system. In A. Voronkov, editor, Proceedings of the Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning Conference, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 624, pages 478--480. Springer-Verlag, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 1992.

No context found.

T. Gaasterland, P. Godfrey, J. Minker, and L. Novik. A Cooperative Answering System. In Andrei Voronkov, editor, Proc. of the Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning Conf., pages 101--120, Vol. 2, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 1992.

....(see [AWS92] user models (see [McC88, KF88] artificial intelligence (see [AP86, Pol90, Par87] and information retrieval. Cooperative answering systems try to enable users to receive answers that they are actually seeking rather than literal answers to the posed questions (see [Mot90, GM88, GGMN92] This paper presents a complementary approach that incorporates the handling of user preferences into the query answering procedure of a database. A declarative formalism for expressing user preferences and needs as a body of information separate from the database is defined. A query answering ....

T. Gaasterland, P. Godfrey, J. Minker, and L. Novik. A Cooperative Answering System. In Andrei Voronkov, editor, Proc. of the Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning Conf. , pages 101--120, Vol. 2, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 1992.

....by Gal [16] identifies the integrity constraints that guarantee failure, and provides a response to the user based on them. Gal also recognized the need to provide an MCS, but did not address how to identify the minimal subqueries with misconceptions. See the survey [14] for more background. In [15, 21] the design and implementation of a cooperative database system are discussed, in which misconception detection and explanation are key components. In this system, all three problems, MFS, MSS, and MCS, are to be addressed. 3 Analysis Finding a Minimal Failing Subquery At first consideration, ....

T. Gaasterland, P. Godfrey, J. Minker, and L. Novik. A cooperative answering system. In A. Voronkov, editor, Proceedings of the Logic Programming and Automated Reasoning Conference, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 624, pages 478--480. Springer-Verlag, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 1992.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC