ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The well-founded semantics of aggregation
Full text PdfPdf (1.19 MB)
Source Symposium on Principles of Database Systems archive
Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems table of contents
San Diego, California, United States
Pages: 127 - 138  
Year of Publication: 1992
ISBN:0-89791-519-4
Author
Sponsors
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
SIGMOD: ACM Special Interest Group on Management of Data
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 4,   Downloads (12 Months): 21,   Citation Count: 11
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/137097.137854
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Common aggregation predicates have natural definitions in logic, either as first order sentences (min, max, etc.), or with elementary induction over a data structure that represents the relation (sum, count, etc.). The well-founded semantics for logic programs provides an interpretation of such definitions. The interpretation of first-order aggregates seems to be quite natural and intuitively satisfying, even in the presence of recursion through aggregation. Care is needed to get useful results on inductive aggregates, however. A basic building block is the “subset” predicate, which states that a data structure represents a subset of an IDB predicate, and which is definable in the well-founded semantics. The analogous “superset” is also definable, and their combination yields a “generic” form of findall. Surprisingly, findall must be used negatively to obtain useful approximations when the exact relation is not yet known. Extensions to the semantics, restrictions on the input, and other supplementary requirements proposed in earlier studies appear to be unnecessary for the purpose of attaching a meaning to a program that involves recursion through aggregation. For example, any reasonable definition of “shortest paths” tolerates negative weight edges, correctly computes shortest paths that exist, and leave tuples undefined where negative-weight cycles cause the shortest path not to exist. Other examples exhibit similarly robust behavior, when defined carefully. Connections with the generic model of computation are discussed briefly.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

AV91
BRSS92
 
CM90
GGZ91
 
GS86
Y. Gure vich and S. Shelah. Fixed-point extensions of first order logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 32:265-280, 1986.
 
Imm86
KKR90
 
KS91
D.B. Ke mp and P. J. Stuckey. Semantics of logic programs with aggregates. In International Logic Programming Symposium, pages 387-401, 1991.
 
Kun88
K. Kunen. Some remarks on the completed database. Technical Report 775, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, 1988. (Abstract appeared in 5th Int'l Conf. Syrup. on Logic Programming, Seattle, Aug. 1988).
 
LT84
J.W. Lloyd and R. W. Topor. Making Prolog more expressive. Journal of Logic Programming, 1(3):225-240, 1984.
 
Mos74
 
MPR90
RS92
 
SR91
 
VG92
VGRS91

CITED BY  11