C. Baral, J. Lobo, and G. Trajcevski, "Formal characterizations of active database: part II," Deductive and Object Oriented Databases. Montreux, Switzerland, December, 1997, pp. 247-264.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....is then executed by computing a stable model and updating the database [43] Bidoit and Maabout perform a similar transformation as do Flesca and Greco [13] However, Bidoit and Maabout s execution model is exactly the well founded semantics of Datalog. A very different approach is described in [6]. Baral et al. propose the active database language, G active . G active s syntax and semantics are derived from the causal action description language introduced in [42] 2.2.5.1 Confluence and Termination Since rule evaluation is non deterministic, another concern for active database language ....

C. Baral, J. Lobo, and G. Trajcevski, "Formal characterizations of active database: part II," Deductive and Object Oriented Databases. Montreux, Switzerland, December, 1997, pp. 247-264.

....in some specific execution model, a lot of research aims at formalizing and characterizing the semantics of active rules in the first place. Once a formal model has been established, abstract properties like termination or expressiveness can be studied. Situation Calculus Based. In [BL96,BLT97] a language L active for active rules is developed, which allows to formalize and reason about the behavior of active rules. The language borrows from L 1 [BGP97] an extension of the action description language A [GL93] used for modeling actual and hypothetical actions and situations, which in ....

C. Baral, J. Lobo, and G. Trajcevski. Formal Characterization of Active Databases: Part II. In F. Bry, K. Ramamohanarao, and R. Ramakrishnan, editors, Intl. Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD), number 1341 in LNCS, pp. 247--264, Montreux, Switzerland, 1997. Springer.

....formalism which is a syntax allowing to represent all dimensions of the taxonomy even though all dimensions are not taken into account by all systems; and a formal (operational) semantics called core format is then given for each system. 7. 5 L active In contrast [FT95] authors of L active [CB97] propose a declarative formalism for specifying rule execution models either for relational or object systems. The key feature of this formalism is a transition function which generates the evolution of the active database states when a sequence of actions is executed. This approach looks like ....

G. Trajcevski C. Baral, J. Logo, Formal Characterizations of Active Databases: part II, Proc. of the 5th Int. Conf. Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (Montreux - Switzerland) (K. Ramamohanarao F. Bry, R. Ramakrishnan, ed.), December 1997, pp. 247--264.

.... of Formalizing the Workflow Specifications Specification and reasoning about activities in our approach is done using a tool based on a high level language AW , developed in the spirit of the action description language A [26] the description of the language is based on AK in [11] L active in [7]; and ADC in [6] Action theories have been successfully used in reasoning about robot control programs [37] and in the logical formalization of active databases [5, 7] reasoning about parameterized actions, qualification and ramification constraints, concurrent execution of actions [29] The ....

.... in the spirit of the action description language A [26] the description of the language is based on AK in [11] L active in [7] and ADC in [6] Action theories have been successfully used in reasoning about robot control programs [37] and in the logical formalization of active databases [5, 7] (reasoning about parameterized actions, qualification and ramification constraints, concurrent execution of actions [29] The later use makes it more appropriate than the traditional approach of program correctness [23] which has been designed for standard programming languages and lacks the ....

C. Baral, J. Lobo, and G. Trajcevski. Formal characterization of active databases: Part ii. In 5th Intl. Conf. on Deducive and Object -- Oriented Databases (DOOD'97), 1997.

....from the basic insert, delete and update actions to SQL update statements. In this paper by an action we will usually refer to an uninterruptable transaction. To specify the effects of an action on a database we borrow constructs from the specification language A [GL93] and our earlier work in [BL96, BLT97]. In the following by a fluent we will mean a database fact, and by a fluent literal we will mean either a database fact or its negation. Effects of actions are specified through effect axioms of the following form: a(X) causes f(Y ) if p 1 (X 1 ) pn (Xn ) 2.1) where a(X) is an action ....

....performed by the last action. On the other hand, in Starburst [Wid96] events are defined in terms of the net effects of a sequence of transitions. To allow the flexibility of defining a set of events and computing them from a sequence of actions we use the notion of event definitions from [BLT97]. An event definition proposition is an expression of the form: e(X) after a(W ) if e 1 (Y 1 ) e m (Y m ) q 1 (Z 1 ) q n (Zn ) 2.6) where e(X) e 1 (Y 1 ) e m (Ym ) are event literals 2 and q 1 (Z 1 ) q n (Zn ) are fluent literals. This proposition says ....

C. Baral, J. Lobo, and G. Trajcevski. Formal characterization of active databases: Part II. In DOOD 97, 1997.

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