Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:12:03.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consistency and trust in peer data exchange systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

LEOPOLDO BERTOSSI  and
LORETO BRAVO
LEOPOLDO BERTOSSI
Affiliation:
School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada (e-mail: [email protected])
LORETO BRAVO
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose and investigate a semantics for peer data exchange systems where different peers are related by data exchange constraints and trust relationships. These two elements plus the data at the peers' sites and their local integrity constraints are made compatible via a semantics that characterizes sets of solution instances for the peers. They are the intended – possibly virtual – instances for a peer that are obtained through a data repair semantics that we introduce and investigate. The semantically correct answers from a peer to a query, the so-called peer consistent answers, are defined as those answers that are invariant under all its different solution instances. We show that solution instances can be specified as the models of logic programs with a stable model semantics. The repair semantics is based on null values as used in SQL databases, and is also of independent interest for repairs of single databases with respect to integrity constraints.

Keywords

Peer data exchangeanswer set programsdisjunctive stable model semanticsmetadata managementschema mappingsrelational databasesintegrity constraintsdatabase repairsconsistency
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 148 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberer, K. 2011. Peer-to-Peer Data Management. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abiteboul, S., Hull, R. and Vianu, V. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. and Chomicki, J. 1999. Consistent query answers in inconsistent databases. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Vianu, V. and Papadimitriou, C., Eds. ACM, New York, USA, 68–79.Google Scholar
Arenas, M., Bertossi, L. and Chomicki, J. 2003. Answer sets for consistent query answers. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 3 (4–5), 393–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arieli, O., Denecker, M. and Bruynooghe, M. 2007. Distance semantics for database repair. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 50 (3–4), 389–415.Google Scholar
Artz, D. and Gil, Y. 2007. A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics 5 (2), 58–71.Google Scholar
Barcelo, P. and Bertossi, L. 2003. Logic programs for querying inconsistent databases. In Proc. Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, Dahl, V. and Wadler, P., Eds. LNCS, vol. 2562. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barcelo, P., Bertossi, L. and Bravo, L. 2003. Characterizing and computing semantically correct answers from databases with annotated logic and answer Sets. In ‘Semantics in Databases’, Springer-Verlag, LNCS 2582, Bertossi, L., Katona, G O. H., Schewe, K.-D. and Thalheim, B., Eds. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 7–33.Google Scholar
Bertossi, L. 2006. Consistent query answering in databases. ACM Sigmod Record 35 (2), 68–76.Google Scholar
Bertossi, L. 2011. Database Repairing and Consistent Query Answering. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA.Google Scholar
Bertossi, L. and Bravo, L. 2004a. Consistent query answers in virtual data integration systems. In Inconsistency Tolerance, Bertossi, L., Hunter, A. and Schaub, T., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3300. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 42–83.Google Scholar
Bertossi, L. and Bravo, L. 2004b. Query answering in peer-to-peer data exchange systems. In Proc. EDBT Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Computing and Databases, Lindner, W., Mesiti, M., Türker, C., Tzitzikas, Y. and Vakali, A., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3268. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 476–485.Google Scholar
Bertossi, L. and Bravo, L. 2007. The semantics of consistency and trust in peer data exchange systems. In Proc. International Conference on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR), Dershowitz, N. and Voronkov, A., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4790. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 107–122.Google Scholar
Boutaba, R. and Marshall, A. (eds.) 2006. Special issue on management in peer-to-peer systems. Computer Networks 50 (4), 472–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, L. 2007. Handling Inconsistency in Databases and Data Integration Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, Department of Computer Science. URL: 1http://people.scs.carleton.ca/~bertossi/papers/Thesis36.pdf Google Scholar
Bravo, L. and Bertossi, L. 2003. Logic programs for consistently querying data sources. In Proc. of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Gottlob, G. and Walsh, T., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA, 10–15.Google Scholar
Bravo, L. and Bertossi, L. 2005. Disjunctive deductive databases for computing certain and consistent answers to queries from mediated data integration systems. Journal of Applied Logic 3 (2), 329–367.Google Scholar
Bravo, L. and Bertossi, L. 2006. Semantically correct query answers in the presence of null values. In Current Trends in Database Technology – EDBT 2006, Grust, T., Höpfner, H., Illarramendi, A., Jablonski, S., Mesiti, M., Müller, S., Patranjan, P.-L., Sattler, K.-U., Spiliopoulou, M. and Wijsen, J., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4254. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 336–357.Google Scholar
Brewka, G., Eiter, T. and Truszczynski, M. 2011. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM 54 (12), 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cali, A., Lembo, D. and Rosati, R. 2003. On the decidability and complexity of query answering over inconsistent and incomplete databases. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Neven, F., Beeri, C. and Milo, T., Eds. ACM Press, New York, USA, 260–271.Google Scholar
Calvanese, D., Damaggio, E., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M. and Rosati, R. 2004. Semantic data integration in P2P systems. In Proc. VLDB International Workshop on Databases, Information Systems and Peer-to-Peer Computing, Aberer, K., Koubarakis, M. and Kalogeraki, V., Eds. LNCS, vol. 2944. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 77–90.Google Scholar
Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M. and Rosati, R. 2005. Inconsistency tolerance in P2P Data integration: An epistemic logic approach. In Proc. International Symposium on Database Programming Languages, Bierman, G. and Koch, C., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3774. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 90–105.Google Scholar
Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M. and Rosati, R. 2008. Inconsistency tolerance in P2P data integration: An epistemic logic approach. Information Systems 33 (4–5), 360–384.Google Scholar
Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M. and Rosati, R. 2004. Logical foundations of peer-to-peer data integration. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Beeri, C. and Deutsch, A., Eds. ACM Press, New York, 241–251.Google Scholar
Caniupan, M. and Bertossi, L. 2010. The consistency extractor system: Answer set programs for consistent query answering in databases. Data & Knowledge Engineering 69 (6), 545–572.Google Scholar
Caroprese, L., Greco, S. and Zumpano, E. 2006. A logic programming approach to querying and integrating P2P deductive databases. In Proc. FLAIRS, Sutcliffe, G. and Goebel, R., Eds. AAAI Press, New York, 31–36.Google Scholar
Caroprese, L. and Zumpano, E. 2008. Modeling cooperation in P2P data management systems. In Foundations of Intelligent Systems, An, A., Matwin, S., Raś, Z. W. and Ślęzak, D., Eds. LNCS, Vol. 4994, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 225–235.Google Scholar
Caroprese, L. and Zumpano, E. 2011. Aggregates and priorities in P2P data management systems. In Proc. International Database Engineering and Applications Symposium (IDEAS 2011), Desai, B. C., Cruz, I. F. and Bernardino, J., Eds. ACM Press, New York, 1–7.Google Scholar
Chomicki, J. 2007. Consistent query answering: Five easy pieces. In Proc. International Conference on Database Theory, Schwentick, T. and Suciu, D., Eds. LNCS, vol. 4353. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1–17.Google Scholar
Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G. and Voronkov, A. 2001. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Computing Surveys 33 (3), 374–425.Google Scholar
Demolombe, R. 2011. Transitivity and propagation of trust in information sources: An analysis in modal logic. In Proc. CLIMA XII, Leite, J., Torroni, P., Ågotnes, T., Boella, G. and van der Torre, L., Eds. LNAI, vol. 6814. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 13–28.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Fink, M., Greco, G. and Lembo, D. 2008. Repair localization for query answering from inconsistent databases. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 33, 2.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G. and Mannila, H. 1997. Disjunctive datalog. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 22 (3), 364–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, W., Greco, G. and Leone, N. 2007. Magic Sets and their Application to Data Integration. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 73 (4), 584–609.Google Scholar
Franconi, E., Kuper, G., Lopatenko, A. and Serafini, L. 2004a. A robust logical and computational characterisation of peer-to-peer database systems. In Proc. VLDB Workshop on Databases, Information Systems and P2P Computing, Aberer, K., Koubarakis, M. and Kalogeraki, V., Eds. LNCS, vol. 2944. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 64–76.Google Scholar
Franconi, E., Kuper, G., Lopatenko, A. and Zaihrayeu, I. 2004b. A distributed algorithm for robust data sharing and updates in P2P database networks. In Proc. EDBT Workshop on Peer-to-peer Computing and Databases, Lindner, W., Mesiti, M., Türker, C., Tzitzikas, Y. and Vakali, A., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3268. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 446–455.Google Scholar
Franconi, E. and Tessaris, S. 2012. On the logic of SQL nulls. In Proc. Alberto Mendelzon WS on Foundations of Data Management, Freire, J. and Suciu, D., Eds. Vol. 866. CEUR WS Proceedings. Available at: http://ceur-ws.org/ Google Scholar
Fuxman, A., Kolaitis, P., Miller, R. and Tan, W. 2006. Peer data exchange. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 31 (4), 1454–1498.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.Google Scholar
Greco, G., Greco, S. and Zumpano, E. 2003. A logical framework for querying and repairing inconsistent databases. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15 (6), 1389–1408.Google Scholar
Halevy, A., Ives, Z., Madhavan, J., Mork, P., Suciu, D. and Tatarinov, I. 2004. The piazza peer data management system. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 16 (7), 787–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, A., Ives, Z., Suciu, D. and Tatarinov, I. 2003. Schema mediation in peer data management systems. In Proc. International Conference on Data Engineering, Dayal, U., Ramamritham, K. and Vijayaraman, T. M., Eds. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 505–518.Google Scholar
Imielinski, Th. and Lipski, W. 1984. Incomplete information in relational databases. Journal of the ACM 31 (4), 761–791.Google Scholar
Jøsang, A., Azderska, T. and Marsh, S. 2012. Trust transitivity and conditional belief reasoning. In Trust Management VI, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 374, Dimitrakos, T., Moona, R., Patel, D. and McKnight, D. H., Eds. Springer, Heidelberg-Dordrecht-London-New York, 68–83 Google Scholar
Jøsang, A., Marsh, S. and Pope, S. 2006. Exploring different types of trust propagation. In Proc. iTrust, Stølen, K., Winsborough, W. H., Martinelli, F. and Massacci, F., Eds. LNCS, vol. 3986. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 179–192.Google Scholar
Kolaitis, P. 2005. Schema mappings, data exchange, and metadata management. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Li, C., Ed. ACM Press, New York, 61–75.Google Scholar
Lenzerini, M. 2002. Data integration: A theoretica perspective. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Popa, L., Abiteboul, S. and Kolaitis, P. G., Eds. ACM Press, New York, 233–246.Google Scholar
Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S. and Scarcello, F. 2006. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7 (3), 499–562.Google Scholar
Levene, M. and Loizou, G. 1997. Null inclusion dependencies in relational databases. Information and Computation 136 (2), 67–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levene, M. and Loizou, G. 1999. A Guided Tour of Relational Databases and Beyond. Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libkin, L. 2014. Incomplete data: What went wrong, and how to fix it. In Proc. ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Hull, R. and Grohe, M., Eds. ACM Press, New York, 1–13.Google Scholar
Libkin, L. 2016. Certain answers as objects and knowledge. Artificial Intelligence 232 (1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V., Pichotta, K. and Yang, F. 2012. Relational theories with null values and non-Herbrand stable models. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 12 (4–5), 565–582.Google Scholar
Marti, S. and Garcia-Molina, H. 2006. Taxonomy of trust: Categorizing P2P reputation systems. Computer Networks 50 (4), 472–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadimitriou, Ch. 1994. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. 1984. Towards a logical reconstruction of relational database theory. In On Conceptual Modelling, Brodie, M., Mylopoulos, J., and Schmidt, J., Eds. Springer, New York, 191–233.Google Scholar
Sabater, J. and Sierra, C. 2005. Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artificial Intelligence Review 24 (1), 33–60.Google Scholar
Serafini, L., Borgida, A. and Tamilin, A. 2005. Aspects of distributed and modular ontology reasoning. In Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Kaelbling, L. P. and Saffiotti, A., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA, 570–575.Google Scholar
Traylor, B. and Gelfond, M. 1994. Representing null values in logic programming. In Logical Foundations of Computer Science, Nerode, A. and Matiyasevich, Y. V., Eds. LNCS, vol. 813. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bertossi and Bravo supplementary material

Bertossi and Bravo supplementary material

Download Bertossi and Bravo supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 698.9 KB