Prioritized repairing and consistent query answering in relational databases

Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 64, Issue 2-3, 2012, Pages 209-246

  Staworko, Sławek ^a   Chomicki, Jan ^b   Marcinkowski, Jerzy ^c  

^a ECOLE CENTRALE DE LILLE   (France)

^b the State University of New York   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WROC AW   (Poland)

Author keywords

Consistent query answers; Preferences; Priorities; Repairing

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861227359     PISSN: 10122443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10472-012-9288-8     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley (1995).
2. Afrati, F., Kolaitis, P.: Repair checking in inconsistent databases: algorithms and complexity. In: International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), pp. 31-41. ACM (2009).
3. Andritsos, P., Fuxman, A., Miller, R. J.: Clean answers over dirty databases: a probabilistic approach. In: International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), p. 30 (2006).
4. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 68-79 (1999).
5. Arenas, M., Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J., He, X., Raghavan, V., Spinrad, J.: Scalar aggregation in inconsistent databases. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 296(3), 405-434 (2003).
6. Bertossi, L.: Consistent query answering in databases. SIGMOD Record 35(2), 68-76 (2006).
7. Bertossi, L., Chomicki, J.: Query answering in inconsistent databases. In: Chomicki, J., van der Meyden, R., Saake, G. (eds.) Logics for Emerging Applications of Databases, pp. 43-83. Springer (2003).
8. Bertossi, L.: Database repairing and consistent query answering. Synthesis Lectures on Data Management 3(5), 1-121 (2011).
9. Brewka, G.: Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1043-1048 (1989).
10. Caroprese, L., Greco, S., Zumpano, E.: Active integrity constraints for database consistency maintenance. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 21(7), 1042-1058 (2009).
11. Chomicki, J.: Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM T. Database Syst. 28(4), 427-466 (2003).
12. Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answering: five easy pieces. In: International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT), pp. 1-17 (2007).
13. Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J.: Minimal-change integrity maintenance using tuple deletions. Inform. Comput. 197(1-2), 90-121 (2005).
14. Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J.: On the computational complexity of minimal-change integrity maintenance in relational databases. In: Bertossi, L., Hunter, A., Schaub, T., (eds.) Inconsistency Tolerance, pp. 119-150. LNCS 3300. Springer (2005).
15. Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J., Staworko, S.: Computing consistent query answers using conflict hypergraphs. In: International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), pp. 417-426. ACM Press (2004).
16. Fagin, R., Ullman, J. D., Vardi, M. Y.: On the semantics of updates in databases. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 352-356 (1983).
17. Fan, W.: Dependencies revisited for improving data quality. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. pages 159-170 (2008).
18. Fuxman, A., Kolaitis, P., Miller, R., Tan, W.-C.: Peer data exchange. ACM T. Database Syst. 31(4), 1454-1498 (2006).
19. Gatterbauer, W., Suciu, D.: Data conflict resolution using trust mappings. In: ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 219-230 (2010).
20. Greco, G., Lembo, D.: Data integration with preferences among sources. In: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling (ER), pp. 231-244. Springer (2004).
21. Greco, S., Sirangelo, C., Trubitsyna, I., Zumpano, E.: Feasibility conditions and preference criteria in quering and repairing inconsistent databases. In: International Conference on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), pp. 44-55 (2004).
22. Grosof, B. N.: Prioritized conflict handling for logic programs. In: International Logic Programming Symposium, pp. 197-211 (1997).
23. Halpern, J. Y.: Defining relative likehood in partially-ordered preferential structures. J. Artificial Intelligence Res. 7, 1-24 (1997).
24. Koltun, V., Papadimitriou, C.: Approximately dominating representatives. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 371(3), 148-154 (2007).
25. Martinez, M. V., Parisi, F., Pugliese, A., Simari, G. I., Subrahmanian, V. S.: Inconsistency management policies. In: International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 367-377 (2008).
26. Motro, A., Anokhin, P., Acar, A. C.: Utility-based resolution of data inconsistencies. In: International Workshop on Information Quality in Information Systems (IQIS), pp. 35-43. ACM (2004).
27. Sakama, C., Inoue, K.: Prioritized logic programming and its application to commonsense reasoning. Artif. Intell. 123, 185-222 (2000).
28. Staworko, S., Chomicki, J.: Consistent query answers in the presence of universal constraints. Inform. Syst. 35(1), 1-22 (2010).
29. Staworko, S., Chomicki, J., Marcinkowski, J.: Preference-driven querying of inconsistent relational databases. In: EDBT Workshops (IIDB), pp. 318-335. Springer (2006).
30. D. Van Nieuwenborgh and D. Vermeir. Preferred answer sets for ordered logic programs. In: European Conference on Logics for Artificial Intelligence (JELIA), pp. 432-443. LNCS 2424. Springer (2002).
31. Vardi, M. Y.: The complexity of relational query languages. In: ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC), pp. 137-146 (1982).
32. Wijsen, J.: Database repairing using updates. ACM T. Database Syst. 30(3), 722-768 (2005).
33. Wijsen, J.: On the first-order expressibility of computing certain answers to conjunctive queries over uncertain databases. In: ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 179-190 (2010).