Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-gszfc Total loading time: 0.22 Render date: 2022-06-30T09:02:46.971Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Putting logic-based distributed systems on stable grounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2015

TOM J. AMELOOT
Affiliation:
Computer Science, Hasselt, Limburg, Belgium (e-mail: tom.ameloot@uhasselt.be, jan.vandenbussche@uhasselt.be)
JAN VAN DEN BUSSCHE
Affiliation:
Computer Science, Hasselt, Limburg, Belgium (e-mail: tom.ameloot@uhasselt.be, jan.vandenbussche@uhasselt.be)
WILLIAM R. MARCZAK
Affiliation:
Computer Science, Berkeley, California, USA (e-mail: wrm@cs.berkeley.edu, palvaro@cs.berkeley.edu, hellerstein@cs.berkeley.edu)
PETER ALVARO
Affiliation:
Computer Science, Berkeley, California, USA (e-mail: wrm@cs.berkeley.edu, palvaro@cs.berkeley.edu, hellerstein@cs.berkeley.edu)
JOSEPH M. HELLERSTEIN
Affiliation:
Computer Science, Berkeley, California, USA (e-mail: wrm@cs.berkeley.edu, palvaro@cs.berkeley.edu, hellerstein@cs.berkeley.edu)

Abstract

In the Declarative Networking paradigm, Datalog-like languages are used to express distributed computations. Whereas recently formal operational semantics for these languages have been developed, a corresponding declarative semantics has been lacking so far. The challenge is to capture precisely the amount of nondeterminism that is inherent to distributed computations due to concurrency, networking delays, and asynchronous communication. This paper shows how a declarative, model-based semantics can be obtained by simply using the well-known stable model semantics for Datalog with negation. We show that the model-based semantics matches previously proposed formal operational semantics.

Type
Regular Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Abiteboul, S., Bienvenu, M., Galland, A., et al. 2011. A rule-based language for Web data management. In Proc. 30th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 293304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abiteboul, S., Hull, R. and Vianu, V. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Abrial, J. 2010. Modeling in Event-B – System and Software Engineering. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alferes, J., Pereira, L., Przymusinska, H. and Przymusinski, T. 2002. LUPS–-a language for updating logic programs. Artificial Intelligence 138, 1–2, 87116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvaro, P., Condie, T., Conway, N., Hellerstein, J. and Sears, R. 2009. I do declare: Consensus in a logic language. Operating Systems Review 43, 4, 2530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvaro, P., Conway, N., Hellerstein, J. and Marczak, W. 2011. Consistency analysis in Bloom: A CALM and collected approach. In Proc. 5th Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, 249260. URL: www.cidrdb.org.Google Scholar
Alvaro, P., Marczak, W., et al. 2009. Dedalus: Datalog in Time and Space. Technical Report EECS-2009-173, University of California, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvaro, P., Marczak, W. et al. 2011. Dedalus: Datalog in time and space. See de Moor et al. (2011), 262281.Google Scholar
Ameloot, T. and Van den Bussche, J. 2014. Positive Dedalus programs tolerate non-causality. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 80, 7, 11911213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameloot, T., Neven, F. and Van den Bussche, J. 2011. Relational transducers for declarative networking. In Proc. 30th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, ACM Press, 283292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameloot, T., Neven, F. and Van den Bussche, J. 2013. Relational transducers for declarative networking. Journal of the ACM 60, 2, 15:115:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ameloot, T. and Van den Bussche, J. 2012. Deciding eventual consistency for a simple class of relational transducer networks. In Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Database Theory, ACM Press, 8698.Google Scholar
Apt, K. and Bol, R. 1994. Logic programming and negation: A survey. The Journal of Logic Programming 19–20, Supplement 1, 0, 971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apt, K., Francez, N. and Katz, S. 1988. Appraising fairness in languages for distributed programming. Distributed Computing 2, 226241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attiya, H. and Welch, J. 2004. Distributed Computing: Fundamentals, Simulations, and Advanced Topics. Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavage, M. 2013. There's just no getting around it: You're building a distributed system. ACM Queue 11, 4.Google Scholar
de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T. and Sellers, A. (Eds.) 2011. Datalog Reloaded: First International Workshop, Datalog 2010, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, vol. 6702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, A., Sui, L., Vianu, V. and Zhou, D. 2006. Verification of communicating data-driven Web services. In Proc. 25th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, ACM Press, 9099.Google Scholar
Francez, N. 1986. Fairness. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, MIT Press, 10701080.Google Scholar
Grumbach, S. and Wang, F. 2010. Netlog, a rule-based language for distributed programming. In Proc. 12th International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, Carro, M. and Peña, R., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5937, 88103.Google Scholar
Hellerstein, J. 2010a. Datalog redux: Experience and conjecture. Video available (under the title “The Declarative Imperative”) from URL: http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/jmh/. PODS 2010 keynote.Google Scholar
Hellerstein, J. 2010b. The declarative imperative: Experiences and conjectures in distributed logic. SIGMOD Record 39, 1, 519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, S., Green, T. and Loo, B. 2011. Datalog and emerging applications: An interactive tutorial. In Proc. of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on the Management of Data, SIGMOD ’11, ACM, 12131216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Interlandi, M., Tanca, L. and Bergamaschi, S. 2013. Datalog in time and space, synchronously. In Proc. 7th Alberto Mendelzon International Workshop on Foundations of Data Management.Google Scholar
Jim, T. 2001. SD3: A trust management system with certified evaluation. In Proc. of the 2001 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, SP, IEEE Computer Society, 106115.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, R. and Naqvi, S. 1988. Non-deterministic choice in Datalog. In Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Data and Knowledge Bases, Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA, USA, 416424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamport, L. 2000a. Distributed algorithms in TLA (abstract). In Proc. of the 19th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, ACM Press, 3.Google Scholar
Lamport, L. 2000b. Fairness and hyperfairness. Distributed Computing 13, 4, 239245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leite, J., Alferes, J. and Pereira, L. 2002. Minerva – a dynamic logic programming agent architecture. In Revised Papers from the 8th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VIII, ATAL, Springer-Verlag, 141157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leite, J. and Soares, L. 2007. Adding evolving abilities to a multi-agent system. In Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Computational Logic in Multi-agent Systems, CLIMA VII’06, Springer-Verlag, 246265.Google Scholar
Lobo, J., Ma, J., Russo, A. and Le, F. 2012. Declarative distributed computing. In Correct Reasoning - Essays on Logic-Based AI in Honour of Vladimir Lifschitz, Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y. and Pearce, D., Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7265. Springer, 454470.Google Scholar
Loo, B. et al. 2009. Declarative networking. Communications of the ACM 52, 11, 8795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, N. 1996. Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Ma, J., Le, F., Wood, D., Russo, A. and Lobo, J. 2013. A declarative approach to distributed computing: Specification, execution and analysis. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, Special Issue 4–5, 815830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marczak, W., Alvaro, P., Conway, N., Hellerstein, J. and Maier, D. 2011. Confluence analysis for distributed programs: A model-theoretic approach. Technical Report UCB/EECS-2011-154 (Dec), EECS Department, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Marek, V. and Truszczynski, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm, Apt, K., Marek, V., Truszczynski, M. and Warren, D., Eds., Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 375398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navarro, J. and Rybalchenko, A. 2009. Operational semantics for declarative networking. In Proceedings 11th International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, Gill, A. and Swift, T., Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7690.Google Scholar
Nigam, V. and Leite, J. 2006. A dynamic logic programming based system for agents with declarative goals. In Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies, DALT, Springer-Verlag, 174190.Google Scholar
Saccà, D. and Zaniolo, C. 1990. Stable models and non-determinism in logic programs with negation. In Proc. of the 9th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, ACM Press, 205217.Google Scholar
Vardi, M. 1982. The complexity of relational query languages. In Proc. 14th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, 137146.Google Scholar
Woodcock, J. and Davies, J. 1996. Using Z: Specification, Refinement, and Proof. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., Cheng, L. and Boutaba, R. 2010. Cloud computing: State-of-the-art and research challenges. Journal of Internet Services and Applications 1, 1, 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinn, D., Green, T. and Ludaescher, B. 2012. Win-move is coordination-free (sometimes). In Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Database Theory, ACM Press, 99113.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Ameloot supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Ameloot supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 592 KB
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Putting logic-based distributed systems on stable grounds
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Putting logic-based distributed systems on stable grounds
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Putting logic-based distributed systems on stable grounds
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *