Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-6pznq Total loading time: 0.303 Render date: 2021-03-05T18:01:56.149Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Consistency and trust in peer data exchange systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

LEOPOLDO BERTOSSI
Affiliation:
School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada (e-mail: bertossi@scs.carleton.ca)
LORETO BRAVO
Affiliation:
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile (e-mail: bravo@udd.cl)
Corresponding

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.

Type
Regular Papers
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.

References

Aberer, K. 2011. Peer-to-Peer Data Management. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael, CA.Google 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, 6879.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), 393424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arieli, O., Denecker, M. and Bruynooghe, M. 2007. Distance semantics for database repair. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 50 (3–4), 389415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artz, D. and Gil, Y. 2007. A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics 5 (2), 5871.CrossRefGoogle 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, 208222.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, 733.Google Scholar
Bertossi, L. 2006. Consistent query answering in databases. ACM Sigmod Record 35 (2), 6876.CrossRefGoogle 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, 4283.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, 476485.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, 107122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutaba, R. and Marshall, A. (eds.) 2006. Special issue on management in peer-to-peer systems. Computer Networks 50 (4), 472484.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), 329367.CrossRefGoogle 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, 336357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewka, G., Eiter, T. and Truszczynski, M. 2011. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM 54 (12), 92103.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, 260271.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, 7790.CrossRefGoogle 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, 90105.CrossRefGoogle 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), 360384.CrossRefGoogle 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, 241251.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), 545572.CrossRefGoogle 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, 3136.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, 225235.CrossRefGoogle 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, 17.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, 117.Google Scholar
Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G. and Voronkov, A. 2001. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Computing Surveys 33 (3), 374425.CrossRefGoogle 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, 1328.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G. and Mannila, H. 1997. Disjunctive datalog. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 22 (3), 364418.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), 584609.CrossRefGoogle 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, 6476.CrossRefGoogle 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, 446455.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), 14541498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365385.CrossRefGoogle 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), 13891408.CrossRefGoogle 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), 787798.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), 761791.CrossRefGoogle 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, 6883 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, 179192.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, 6175.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, 233246.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), 499562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levene, M. and Loizou, G. 1997. Null inclusion dependencies in relational databases. Information and Computation 136 (2), 67108.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, 113.Google Scholar
Libkin, L. 2016. Certain answers as objects and knowledge. Artificial Intelligence 232 (1), 119.CrossRefGoogle 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), 565582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marti, S. and Garcia-Molina, H. 2006. Taxonomy of trust: Categorizing P2P reputation systems. Computer Networks 50 (4), 472484.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, 191233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabater, J. and Sierra, C. 2005. Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artificial Intelligence Review 24 (1), 3360.CrossRefGoogle 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, 341352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertossi and Bravo supplementary material

Bertossi and Bravo supplementary material

PDF 699 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 55 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 5th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Consistency and trust in peer data exchange systems
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Consistency and trust in peer data exchange systems
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Consistency and trust in peer data exchange systems
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *