Deontic database constraints, violation and recovery (Q1922825)

The key idea of the paper is an analysis and an introduction of ``soft'' (deontic) database integrity constraints. According to a common approach, an update of a database is permitted only if no constraint is violated (the ``hard'' integrity constraints). The authors consider soft integrity constraints -- constraints that admit violation. A deontic constraint ideally should be satisfied, but nevertheless it may fail to be satisfied by some acceptable database states (called sub-ideal database states). This perspective is based on the notion of normative system. The norms prescribe how the system ought to behave. Nevertheless, the possibility of ``bad behaviour'' is not excluded. Some attention is devoted to the problem what should be done in circumstances of norm violation. An integrity constraint is appropriately represented as a ``soft'' constraint when its violation is possible (either because of the occurrence of events not under the control of the system, or because of the high cost of regimentation) and when some procedures are required as a response to instances of violation. A classification of deontic sentences is given in the paper and the relevance of the different types of sentences for the characterization of databases is discussed. A preliminary proposal for a deontic logic suitable for database specifications is outlined. The characterization of the logic is given in terms of its model theory. The models represent two distinct types of states (and transitions of states) -- the ideal and the sub-ideal. Truth conditions are defined in terms of these notions for sentences which express obligations over states (deontic static constraints) and over transitions (deontic transition constraints). Ideality/sub-ideality with respect to transitions and ideality/sub-ideality with respect to states are distinguished in the model theory. Three absolute necessity operators over states (necessary in all states, in all ideal states, in all sub-ideal states) are defined. Similarly, three relative necessity operators over transitions are defined. Corresponding dual possiblity operators are introduced, and finally, deontic operators of obligation, permission, and forbidance are defined. Applications of the logic -- how it can be used to specify integrity constraints, including an analysis of the recovery problem -- are sketched. For each class of integrity constraints the general form of statements is expressed and illustrated by some examples. A semantic characterization of two recovery operators is proposed.