H. V. Jagadish, A. O. Mendelzon, and I. S. Mumick. Managing Conflicts between Rules. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS '96), pages 192--201, June 1996.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....computational complexity of testing consistency of production rules were presented in [3] Those works are quite different from ours in that they assume interpreted actions (variable assignments or database updates) and mostly ignore the event part of event condition action rules. A recent work [13] deals with a model that is closer to ours, although the conflicts studied are still between the rules, not actions, and the events are not taken into account. This work proposes a metalanguage for the control of rule executions. The rules themselves are viewed as black boxes. Using the ....

....with a model that is closer to ours, although the conflicts studied are still between the rules, not actions, and the events are not taken into account. This work proposes a metalanguage for the control of rule executions. The rules themselves are viewed as black boxes. Using the metalanguage of [13], one can often achieve similar effects to our framework. For example, the policy P 1 from Example 2 can be represented as a conjunction of the following relationships from [13] the rules 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, the rule 1 is preferred over the rule 2, the rules 2 and 3 require each ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. V. Jagadish, A. O. Mendelzon, and I. S. Mumick. Managing conflicts between rules. In Proc. 15th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 192-- 201, 1996.

....pre commit time (and thus the complete execution of the transaction is local) is actually more in line with current commercial systems that use replication. Oracle [16] for example, has developed application dependent reconciliation rules for conflict resolution. Jagadish, Mendelzon, and Mumick [11] have proposed a meta rule language to specify which rules apply and in what order and to determine if a particular set of rules is unambiguous. Since both cascading aborts and the application of reconciliation rules to resolve the effect of committing conflicting transactions should be minimized ....

H.V. Jagadish, A.O. Mendelzon, I.S. Mumick, "Managing Conflicts between Rules", Proceedings, 1996 ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 192-201, 1996.

....is because concluding both drive and take bus would not violate the notion of preference intended in their systems. It is interesting to note that a notion of priority, very similar to the one used in this paper, has been studied in a quite different context, active databases, by Jagadish et al. [25]. They analyze various types of interactions between rules in active databases and find that application of a rule blocking other rules is one of the most basic interactions between rules of active databases. 5.2 Explicit priority in logic programming The concept of logic programming without ....

H. V. Jagadish, A. O. Mendelzon, and I. S. Mumick. Managing conflicts between rules. In Proc. PODS, 1996. 27

....becomes firable and may be performed. If the condition in the body is satisfied at the performing point, the action is then performed. In general, multiple rules may be firable when an event occurs. In this case, rule interactions may be specified in a meta language to constrain their execution [4]. For example, one may specify that rule r 1 must be executed before that of rule r 2 ; or only one of the two rules r 1 and r 2 may be executed. Thus, an active database is a database with an active rule system built on top of it. Such an active rule system consists of ECA rules and some meta ....

....a criterion by which the confluence property can be guaranteed Note that the execution of a rule may cause other rules to be firable. Thus, the confluence property subscribes to a dynamic behavior of the underlying rule system. This is the key difference with the recent study by Jagadish et al. [4] where they are concerned with static properties, namely, given a set of firable rules, which rules should be executed so that the rule interactions are satisfied. In particular, they do not consider the situation where the execution of a rule may cause others to be firable. Our work can be seen ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

H. V. Jagadish, A. O. Mendelzon, and I. S. Mumick. Managing conflicts between rules. In Proc. of PODS. Montreal Quebec, Canada, 1996.

....higher rules. Thus in this framework priority is achieved automatically by program structure. As for the notion of priority, we believe that different priorities may be needed for different purposes and a real system may need several kinds of priorities together to work. Recently, Jagadish et al. [17] analyze various types of interactions between rules in active databases and find that exclusive priority is one of the basic interactions between rules of active databases. ....

H. Jagadish, A. Mendelzon, and I. Mumick. Managing conflicts between rules. In Proc. ACM PODS. Montreal Quebec, Canada, 1996.

No context found.

H. V. Jagadish, A. O. Mendelzon, and I. S. Mumick. Managing Conflicts between Rules. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGACT/SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS '96), pages 192--201, June 1996.

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