Wang, M. Balazinska, and D. Halperin. Aug. 2015. Asynchronous and fault-tolerant recursive datalog evaluation in shared-nothing engines. Proc. of the VLDB Endowment, 8(12):1542–1553. DOI: 10.14778/2824032.2824052. 82
K. Wang and L. Yuan. 1992. Preservation of integrity constraints in definite DATALOG programs. Information Processing Letters, 44(4):185–193. DOI: 10.1016/0020-0190(92)90083-8. 31
D. H. D. Warren. 1981. Efficient processing of interactive relational data base queries expressed in logic. In Proc. of the Seventh International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, VLDB ’81, pp. 272–281. VLDB Endowment. 12
D. H. D. Warren. 1982a. Higher-order extensions to Prolog: Are they needed? In J. E. Hayes, D. Michie, and Y.-H. Pao, editors, Machine Intelligence, vol. 10, pp. 441–454. Halsted Press. 37
D. H. D. Warren. 1982b. A view of the Fifth Generation and its impact. AI Magazine, 3(4):34. 12
D. H. D. Warren and F. C. N. Pereira. July 1982. An efficient easily adaptable system for interpreting natural language queries. Computational Linguistics, 8(3-4):110–122. 12
D. S. Warren. Mar. 1992. Memoing for logic programs. Commun. ACM, 35(3):93–111. DOI: 10.1145/131295.131299. 54
D. S. Warren, T. Swift, and K. F. Sagonas. Mar. 2007. The XSB Programmer’s Manual, Version 2.7.1. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY. The XSB System is available from xsb.sourceforge.net, and the system and manual is continually updated. 59, 71
T. Winograd. 1975. Frame Representations and the Procedural–Declarative Controversy. In D. Bobrow and A. Collins, editors, Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pp. 185–210. Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-108550-6.50012-4. 14
G. Yang, M. Kifer, and C. Zhao. Nov. 2003. FLORA-2: A rule-based knowledge representation and inference infrastructure for the Semantic Web. In International Conference on Ontologies, Databases and Applications of Semantics (ODBASE-2003), vol. 2888 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 671–688. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-39964-3_43. 34, 38, 46, 91
M. Yang, A. Shkapsky, and C. Zaniolo. Apr. 2017. Scaling up the performance of more powerful Datalog systems on multicore machines. The VLDB Journal, 26(2):229–248. DOI: 10.1007/s00778-016-0448-z. 83
C. Zaniolo. 1986. Prolog: A database query language for all seasons. In Proc. from the First International Workshop on Expert Database Systems, pp. 219–232. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA. 12
C. Zaniolo. 1988. Design and implementation of a logic based language for data intensive applications. In Proc. of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 1666–1687. 65
C. Zaniolo. 1993. A unified semantics for active and deductive databases. In Proc. of the Workshop on Rules in Database Systems, Workshops in Computing. Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-3225-7_16. 41
C. Zaniolo. 2002. Key constraints and monotonic aggregates in deductive databases. In Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond, Essays in Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II, pp. 109–134. Springer-Verlag, London, UK. DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45632-5_5. 25
C. Zaniolo and H. Wang. 1999. Logic-based user-defined aggregates for the next generation of database systems. In The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective, pp. 401–426. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-60085-2_18. 25
C. Zaniolo, N. Arni, and K. Ong. Dec. 1993. Negation and aggregates in recursive rules: The LDL++ approach. In Proc. of the Third International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases (DOOD), pp. 204–221. Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 760. 24
C. Zaniolo, S. Ceri, C. Faloutsos, R. T. Snodgrass, V. S. Subrahmanian, and R. Zicari. 1997. Advanced Database Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. 42
C. Zaniolo, M. Yang, A. Das, A. Shkapsky, T. Condie, and M. Interlandi. 2017. Fixpoint semantics and optimization of recursive Datalog programs with aggregates. TPLP, 17(5-6):1048–1065. DOI: 10.1017/S1471068417000436. 83
N. Zhou, Y. Shen, L. Yuan, and J. You. 2001. Implementation of a linear tabling mechanism. Journal of Functional and Logic Programming, 2001(10). DOI: 10.1007/3-540-46584-7_8. 59
D. Zook, E. Pasalic, and B. Sarna-Starosta. 2009. Typed Datalog. In Proc. of the 11th International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, PADL ’09, pp. 168–182. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 31
1. This example is inspired by the Mathematics Genealogy Project, http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/, which is also the source of most of the data used.
2. Another popular convention in Datalog systems is to prefix variables with the question mark, e.g., ?First, ?Area, ?Year.
3. We assume in this chapter a basic knowledge of relational database systems, such as relational algebra and the SQL query language. The necessary background would be included in any introductory database text, such as Garcia-Molina et al. [2009].
4. SQL:1999 introduced support for the comparatively limited form of linear recursion.
5. A Horn clause is a logical implication among positive literals with at most one literal in the consequent.
6. A list of these workshops can be found in http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/xp/index.html
7. The use of negation requires an additional syntactic condition to ensure safety, namely that every variable in a rule appear in at least one non-negated goal in the rule body. Thus, for example, a rule unrelated (P1, P2) :- not related (P1, P2) would not be safe.
8. Minimality in this context means there is no other satisfying truth assignment that makes a proper subset of the propositions true. Note that there can be multiple, incomparable such assignments.
9. The notation pred/N indicates that the predicate pred takes N arguments.
10. Beeri and Vardi [1981] viewed the above rules as constraints—or dependencies—and used a different, but equivalent, tableaux representation for them.
11. http://bitbucket.org/giorsi/nyaya
12. Another convention is to use a right-pointing arrow for rules that should be interpreted as integrity constraints [Aref et al. 2015].
14. F-logic frames can be viewed as a formalization of the concept of frames introduced by Minsky [1975].
15. In F-logic, classes are also objects and they can have information about themselves, which is not inherited by instances of these classes. In Java terms, this information corresponds to static methods.
16. LPS [Kowalski and Sadri 2012] is an exception, as it has some of the characteristics of Transaction Logic, described in the next subsection.
17.
