Deductive

Deductive Databases
Jan. 2012 Yangjun Chen ACS-3902 1

Outline Chapter 25 3rd ed. (Chap. 24.4 4
th
, 5
th
ed.; 26.5, 6
th
ed.)
What is a deductive database system?
Some basic concepts
Basic inference mechanism for logic programs
Datalog programs and their evaluation
Deductive Databases
What is a deductive database system?
A deductive database can be defined as an advanced
database augmented with an inference system.
Database + Inference
Deductive
database
By evaluating rules against facts, new facts can be derived, which in turn
can be used to answer queries. It makes a database system more powerful.
Deductive Databases
Some basic concepts from logic
To understand the deductive database system well, some
basic concepts from mathematical logic are needed.
- term
- n-ary predicate
- literal
- (well-formed) formula
- clause and Horn-clause
- facts
- logic program

Deductive Databases
- term
A term is a constant, a variable or an expression of
the form f(t
1
, t
2
, ..., t
n
), where t
1
, t
2
, ..., t
n
are terms
and f is a function symbol.
- Example: a, b, c, f(a, b), g(a, f(a, b)), x, y, g(x, y)
- n-ary predicate
An n-ary predicate symbol is a symbol p appearing
in an expression of the form p(t
1
, t
2
, ..., t
n
), called an
atom, where t
1
, t
2
, ..., t
n
are terms. p(t
1
, t
2
, ..., t
n
) can
only evaluate to true or false.
- Example: p(a, b), q(a, f(a, b)), p(x, y)
Deductive Databases
- literal
A literal is either an atom or its negation.
- Example: p(a, f(a, b)), p(a, f(a, b))
- (well-formed) formula
- A well-formed (logic) formula is defined
inductively as follows:
- An atom is a formula.
- If P and Q are formulas, then so are P, (P.Q),
(PvQ), (PQ), and (PQ).
- If x is a variable and P is a formula containing x,
then (xP) and (-xP) are formulas.
Deductive Databases
- clause
- A clause is an expression of the following form:
A
1
v A
2
v ... v A
n
v B
1
v ... v B
m

where A
i
and B
j
are atoms.
- The above expression can be written in the
following equivalent form:
B
1
v ... v B
m
A
1
. ... . A
n

or
B
1
, ..., B
m
A
1
, ..., A
n
antecedent
consequent
Deductive Databases
- clause

A

v B

A B
1 0 0
1 1 1
0 1 1
0 0 1
B A A B
1 0 0
1 1 1
0 1 1
0 0 1
- Horn clause
A Horn clause is a clause with the head containing only
one positive atom.

B
m
A
1
, ..., A
n
Deductive Databases
- fact
- A fact is a special Horn clause of the following form:
B

with all variables in B being instantiated. (B can be
simply written as B.)
- logic program
A logic program is a set of Horn clauses.

Deductive Databases
- Example (a logic program)
Facts:
supervise(franklin, john),
supervise(franklin, ramesh),
supervise(franklin, joyce)
supervise(james, franklin),
supervise(jennifer, alicia),
supervise(jennifer, ahmad),
supervise(james, jennifer).

Rules:
superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Y),
superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Z), superior(Z, Y),
subordinary(X, Y) superior(Y, X).
james
franklin
jennifer
john ramesh joyce alicia ahmad
Deductive Databases
Facts can be considered as the data stored as relations in a
relational database.
Deductive Databases
Basic inference mechanism for logic programs
- interpretation of programs (rules + facts)
There are two main alternatives for interpreting the theoretical
meaning of rules:
proof theoretic, and
model theoretic interpretation

- proof theoretic interpretation
1. The facts and rules are considered to be true statements,
or axioms.
facts - ground axioms
rules - deductive axioms
2. The deductive axioms are used to construct proofs that
derive new facts from existing facts.
Deductive Databases
- Example:

1. superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Y). (rule 1)
2. superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Z), superior (Z, Y). (rule 2)

3. supervise(jennifer, ahmad). (ground axiom, given)
4. supervise(james, jennifer). (ground axiom, given)
5. superior(jennifer, ahmad). (apply rule 1 on 3)
6. superior(james, ahmad). (apply rule 2 on 4 and 5)
Deductive Databases
- model theoretic interpretation
1. Given a finite or an infinite domain of constant values,
assign to each predicate in the program every possible
combination of values as arguments.
2. All the instantiated predicates contitute a Herbrand base.
3. An interpretation is a subset of the Herbrand base.
4. In the Herbrand base, each instantiated predicate evaluates
to true or false in terms of the given facts and rules.
5. An interpretation is called a model for a specific set of rules
and the corresponding facts if those rules are always true
under that interpretation.
6. A model is a minimal model for a set of rules and facts if
we cannot change any element in the model from true to
false and still get a model for these rules and facts.
Deductive Databases
- Example:
2. superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Z), superior(Z, Y). (rule 2)

known facts:
supervise(franklin, john), supervise(franklin, ramesh),
supervise(franklin, joyce), supervise(james, franklin),
supervise(jennifer, alicia), supervise(jennifer, ahmad),
For all other possible (X, Y) combinations supervise(X, Y) is false.

domain = {james, franklin, john, ramesh, joyce, jennifer, alicia, ahmad}

Deductive Databases
Interpretation - model - minimal model
known facts:

derived facts:
superior(franklin, john), superior(franklin, ramesh),
superior(franklin, joyce), superior(jennifer, alicia),
superior(jennifer, ahmad), superior(james, franklin),
superior(james, jennifer), superior(james, john),
superior(james, ramesh), superior(james, joyce),
superior(james, alicia), superior(james, ahmad).
For all other possible (X, Y) combinations superior(X, Y) is false.

Deductive Databases

The above interpretation is also a model for the rules (1) and (2) since each
of them evaluates always to true under the interpretation. For example,

superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Y)

superior(franklin, john) supervise(franklin, john) is true.
superior(franklin, ramesh) supervise(franklin, ramesh) is true.
...

superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Z), superior(Z, Y)

superior(james, ramesh) supervise(james, franklin),
superior (franklin, ramesh) is true.
superior(james, alicia) supervise(james, jennifer),
superior (jennifer, alicia) is true.
Deductive Databases
The model is also the minimal model for the rule (1) and (2) and the
corresponding facts since eliminating any element from the model
will make some facts or instatiated rules evaluate to false.
For example,

eliminating supervise(franklin, john) from the model will make this fact
no more true under the interpretation;

eliminating superior (james, ramesh) will make the following rule no
more true under the interpretation:

superior(james, ramesh) supervise(james, franklin),
superior(franklin, ramesh)

Deductive Databases
- Inference mechanism
In general, there are two approaches to evaluating logical
programs: bottom-up and top-down.

- Bottom-up mechanism
(also called forward chaining and bottom-up resolution)
1. The inference engine starts with the facts and applies
the rules to generate new facts. That is, the inference
moves forward from the facts toward the goal.
2. As facts are generated, they are checked against the
query predicate goal for a match.
Deductive Databases
- Example
query goal: superior(james, Y)?
rules and facts are given as above.

1. Check whether any of the existing facts directly matches the
query.
2. Apply the first rule to the existing facts to generate new facts.
3. Apply the second rule to the existing facts to generate new
facts.
4. As each fact is gnerated, it is checked for a match of the the
query goal.
5. Repeat step 1 - 4 until no more new facts can be found.
All the facts of the form: superior(james, a) are the answers.
Deductive Databases
- Example:
2. superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Z), superior(Z, Y). (rule 2)

known facts:
domain = {james, franklin, john, ramesh, joyce, jennifer, alicia, ahmad}
superior(james, Y)?

applying the first rule: superior(james, franklin), superior(james, jennifer)
Y = {franklin, jennifer}

applying the second rule: Y = {John, Joyce, Ramesh, alicia, ahmad}
Deductive Databases
- Top-down mechanism
(also called back chaining and top-down resolution)
1. The inference engine starts with the query goal and
attempts to find matches to the variables that lead to
valid facts in the database. That is, the inference moves
backward from the intended goal to determine facts that
would satisfy the goal.
2. During the course, the rules are used to generate
subgoals. The matching of these subgoals will lead to
the match of the intended goal.
Deductive Databases
- Example
query goal: ?-superior(james, Y)
rules and facts are given as above.
Query: ?-superior(james, Y)
Rule1: superior(james, Y)
supervise(james, Y)
Rule2: superior(james, Y)
supervise(james, Z),
superior(Z, Y)
supervise(james, Z)
superior(franklin, Y) superior(jennifer, Y)
Y=franklin, jennifer
Z=frankiln
Z=jennifer
Deductive Databases
Rule1: superior(franklin, Y)
supervise(franklin, Y)
Rule1: superior(jennifer, Y)
supervise(jennifer, Y)
Y= john, ramesh, joyce
Y= alicia, ahmad
Deductive Databases
1. A Datalog program is a logic program.
2. In a Datalog program, each predicate contains no
function symbols.
3. A Datalog program normally contains two kinds of
predicates: fact-based predicates and rule-based
predicates.
fact-based predicates are defined by listing all the
combinations of values that make the predicate true.
Rule-based predicates are defined to be the head of one or
more Datalog rules. They correspond to virtual relations
whose contents can be inferred by the inference engine.
Deductive Databases
Example:
- All the programs discussed earlier are Datalog
programs.
superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Y).
superior (X, Y) supervise(X, Z), superior (Z, Y).
supervise(jennifer, ahmad).
- The following is a logic program, but not a
Datalog program:
p(X, Y) q(f(Y), X)

Deductive Databases
two important concepts:
- safety of programs
- predicate dependency graph
Deductive Databases
- Safety of programs
A Datalog program or a rule is said to be safe if it
generates a finite set of facts.
- Condition of unsafty
A rule is unsafe if one of the variables in the rule can range
over an infinite domain of values, and that variable is not
limited to ranging over a finite predicate before it is
instantiated.
- Example:
big_salary(Y) Y > 60000.
big_salary(Y) Y > 60000, employee(X), salary(X, Y).
Deductive Databases
- Example: ?-big_salary(Y)
big_salary(Y) Y > 60000.
big_salary(Y) Y > 60000, employee(X), salary(X, Y).
The evaluation of these rules (no matter whether in bottom-
up or in top-down fashion) will never terminate.
The following is a safe rule:
big_salary(Y) employee(X), salary(X, Y), Y > 60000.
Deductive Databases
A variable X is limited if
(1) it appears in a regular (not built-in) predicate in the body of the
rule.
(built-in predicates: <, >, >, s, =, =)
(2) it appears in a predicate of the form X = c or c = X, where c is
a constant.
(3) it appears in a predicate of the form X = Y or Y = X in the rule
body, where Y is a limited variable.
(4) Before it is instantiated, some other regular predicates containing
it will have been evaluated.
- Condition of safty:
A rule is safe if each variable in it is limited.
A program is safe if each rule in it is safe.
Deductive Databases
- predicate dependency graphs
For a program P, we construct a dependency graph G representing
a refer to relationship between the predicates in P. This is a
directed graph where there is node for each predicate and an arc
from node q to node p if and only if the predicate q occurs in the
body of a rule whose head predicate is p.
Exampel:
superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Y),
superior(X, Y) supervise(X, Z), superior(Z, Y),
subordinary(X, Y) superior(Y, X),
supervisor(X, Y) employee(X), supervise(X, Y),
over_40K_emp(X) employee(X), salary(X, Y), Y>40000,
under_40K_supervisor(X) supervisor(X), not(over_40K_emp(X)),
main_productx _emp(X ) employee(X), workson(X, productx, Y), Y > 20,
president(X) employee(X), not(supervise(Y, X)).
Deductive Databases
- predicate dependency graphs
workson employee salary supervise
department project female male
main_poductx_emp president over_40K_emp superior
supervisor under_40K_supervisor
subordinate

Deductive Databases

Evaluation of nonrecursive rules
- If the dependency graph for a rule set has no cycles, the rule set is
nonrecursive.
Deductive Databases
- Evaluation of nonrecursive rules
- evaluation involving only fact-based predicates
?-salary(X, 60000)
t
$1
(o
$2 = 60000
(salary))
- evaluation involving only rule-based predicates
1. rule rectification
h(X, c) ... h(X, Y) ... ,Y=c
h(X, X) ... h(X, Y) ..., Y=X
Deductive Databases
- evaluation involving only rule-based predicate
2. Single rule evaluation
To evaluate a rule of the from:
p p
1
, ..., p
n

we first compute the relations corresponding to p
1
, ..., p
n

and then the relation corresponding to p.
3. All the rules will be evaluated along the predicate
dependency graph. At each step, each rule will be evaluated
in terms of step (2).

Deductive Databases
- The general bottom-up evaluation strategy for a nonrecursive query
?-p(x1, x2, , xn)
1. Locate a set of rules S whose head involves the predicate p. If there
are no such rules, then p is a fact-based predicate corresponding to
some database relation R
p
; in this case, one of the following expression
is returned and the algorithm is terminated. (We use the notation $i to
refer to the name of the i-th attribute of relation R
p
.)
(a) If all arguments in p are distinc variables, the relational expression
returned is R
p
.
(b) If some arguments are constants or if the same variable
appears in more than one argument position, the expression
returned is
SELECT
<condition>
(R
p
),
Deductive Databases
where the <condition> is a conjunctive condition made up of a number
of simple conditions connected by AND, and constructed as follows:
i. if a constant c appears as argument i, include a simple
condition ($i = c) in the conjuction.
ii. if the same variable appears in both argument location j and k,
include a condition ($j = $k) in the conjuction.
2. At this point, one or more rules S
i
, i = 1, 2, ..., n, n > 0 exist with
predicate p as their head. For each such rule S
i
, generate a relational
expression as follows:
a. Apply selection operation on the predicates in the body for each
such rule, as discussed in Step 1(b).
b. A natural join is constructed among the relations that correspond to
the predicates in the body of the rule S
i
over the common
variables. Let the resulting relation from this join be R
s
.
Deductive Databases
c. If any built-in predicate XuY was defined over the arguments
X and Y, the result of the join is subjected to an additional
selection:
SELECT
XuY
(R
s
)
d. Repeat Step 2(c) until no more built-in predicates apply.
3. Take the UNION of the expressions generated in Step 2 (if more
than one rule exists with predicate p as its head.)

Deductive Databases

Evaluation of recursive rules
- If the dependency graph for a rule set has at least one cycle, the
rule set is recursive.
ancestor(X, Y) parent(X, Y),
ancestor(X, Y) parent(X, Z), ancestor(Z, Y).
- naive strategy
- semi-naive strategy
- stratified databases
Deductive Databases
- some teminology for recursive queries
- linearly recursive
- left linearly recursive
ancestor(X, Y) ancestor(X, Z), parent(Z, Y)
- right linearly recursive
ancestor(X, Y) parent(X, Z), ancestor(Z, Y)
- non-linearly recursive
sg(X, Y) sg(X, Z), sibling(Z, W), sg(W, Y)

Deductive Databases
- extensional database (EDB) predicate
An EDB predicate is a predicate whose relation is stored in the
database - fact-based predicate.
- intensional database (IDB) predicate
An IDB predicate is a predicate whose relation is defined by
logic rules - rule-based predicate.
- Datalog equation
A Datalog equation is an equation obtained by replacing
and . with = and in a rule, respectively.
a(X, Y) = p(X, Y) t
X,Y
(p(X, Z) a(Z, Y))
Deductive Databases
- fixed point
Consider a relation sequence: g
0
, g
1
, , g
i
, g
i+1
, ...
E
i
(g
0
) = E (E( ... E(g
0
) ... ))
i
If at some time we have E
i
(g
0
) = E
i+1
(g
0
),
then E
i
(g
0
) is the fixed point of the
function E(...). It is also the least fixed
point of E(...).
If there exits some g such that g = E(g), g is called the fixed point.
The least among all fixed points of E(...) is called the least fixed point.
- evaluation of fixed points
g
0
= C,

g
i+1
= E(g
i
),
Deductive Databases
- fixed point
Example:
a(X, Y) = p(X, Y) t
X,Y
(p(X, Z) a(Z, Y))
p = {(f, j), (f, r), (f, jo), (je, a), (je, ah), (ja, f), (ja, je)}
a
0
= { }
a
1
= {(f, j), (f, r), (f, jo), (je, a), (je, ah), (ja, f), (ja, je)}
a
2
= {(f, j), (f, r), (f, jo), (je, a), (je, ah), (ja, f), (ja, je),
(ja, j), (ja, r), (ja, jo), (ja, a), (ja, ah)}
a
3
= a
2
least

fixed point
The least fixed point of the above equation is also called the
transitive closure of p.
Deductive Databases
- evaluation of recursive queries
- naive strategy
1. The naive evaluation method is a bottom-up strategy which
computes the least model of a Datalog program.
2. It is an iterative strategy and at each iteration all rules are
applied to the set of tuples produced thus far to generate all
implicit tuples.
3. This iterative process continues until no more new tuples can
be produced.

Deductive Databases
- naive strategy
Consider the following equation system:
R
i
= E
i
(R
1
, ..., R
i
, ..., R
n
) (i = 1, ..., m)
which is formed by replacing the symbol with an equality
sign in a Datalog program.
Algorithm Jacobi naive strategy
input: A system of algebraic equations and EDB.
output: The values of the variable relations: R
1
, ..., R
i
, ..., R
n
.
for i = 1 to n do R
i
:= C;
repeat
Con := true;
for i = 1 to n do S
i
:= R
i
;
for i = 1 to m do {R
i
:= E
i
(S
1
, ..., S
i
, ..., S
n
);
if R
i
= S
i
then {Con := false; S
i
:= R
i
;}}
until Con = true;
Deductive Databases
- naive strategy
sg(X, Y) sg(X, W), sibling(W, Z), sg(Z, Y)
sibling(X, Y) parent(X, W), sibling(W, Z), parent(Y, Z)
sg = E
1
(sg, sibling)
sibling = E
2
(sibling)
sg(X, Y) = t
X,Y
(sg(X, W) sibling(W, Z) sg(Z, Y))
sibling(X, Y) = t
X,Y
(parent(X, W) sibling(W, Z) parent(Y, Z))
sg

R
1
sibling

R
2
R
1
= E
1
(R
1
, R
2
)
R
2
= E
2
(R
2
)
Deductive Databases
- naive strategy
Example:
ancestor(X, Y) parent(X, Y),
ancestor(X, Y) parent(X, Z), ancestor(Z, Y).
Parent = {(bert, alice), (bert, george), (alice, derek), (alice,
part), (derek, frank)}
bert
alice george
derek pat
frank
Deductive Databases
- naive strategy
Example:
A(X, Y) = t
X,Y
(P(X, Z) A(Z, Y)) P(X, Y)
step 0: A
0

= C
step 1: A
1

= {(bert, alice), (bert, george), (alice, derek), (alice, part),
(derek, frank)}
step 2: A
2

(derek, frank), (bert, derek), (bert, pat), (alice, frank)}
step 3: A
3

(derek, frank), (bert, derek), (bert, pat), (alice, frank),
(bert, frank)}
step 4: A
4

= A
3

Deductive Databases
- naive strategy
Algorithm Gauss-Seidel naive strategy
Jacobi:

k-th iteration:
R
1
(k) = E
1
(R
1
(k-1), ..., R
i
(k-1), ..., R
n
(k-1)),

R
i
(k) = E
i
(R
1
(k-1), ..., R
i
(k-1), ..., R
n
(k-1)),

R
n
(k) = E
n
(R
1
(k-1), ..., R
i
(k-1), ..., R
n
(k-1)).
Gauss-Seidel:

k-th iteration:
R
1
(k) = E
1
(R
1
(k-1), ..., R
i
(k-1), ..., R
n
(k-1)),

R
i
(k) = E
i
(R
1
(k), ..., R
i
(k-1), ..., R
n
(k-1)),

R
n
(k) = E
n
(R
1
(k), ..., R
i
(k), ..., R
n
(k-1)).
Deductive Databases
1. The semi-naive evaluation method is a bottom-up strategy.
2. It is designed to eliminate redundancy in the evaluation of
tuples at different iterations.
Let R
i(k)
be the temporary value of relation R
i
at iteration step k.
The differential of R
i
between step k and step k - 1 is defined as
follows:
D
i(k)
= R
i(k)
- R
i(k-1)

For a linearly recursive rule set, D
i(k)
can be substituted for R
i
in
the k-th iteration of the nave algorithm.
3. The result is obtained by the union of the newly obtained term
R
i
and that obtained in the previous step.
Deductive Databases
Algorithm seminaiv strategy
input: A system of algebraic equations and EDB.
output: The values of the variable relations: R
1
, ..., R
i
, ..., R
n
.
for i = 1 to n do R
i
:= C;
for i = 1 to m do D
i
:= C;
repeat
Con := true;
for i = 1 to n do {D
i
:= E(D
1
, ..., D
i
, ..., D
n
) - R
i
;
R
i
:= D
i
R
i
;
if D
i
= C then Con := false;
}
until Con is true;
Deductive Databases
Example:
Step 0: D
0

= C, A
0

= C;
Step 1: D
1

= P = {(bert, alice), (bert, george), (alice, derek), (alice, part),
(derek, frank)}
A
1

= D
1

A
0
= {(bert, alice), (bert, george), (alice, derek), (alice,
part), (derek, frank)}
Step 2: D
2

= {(bert, derek), (bert, pat), (alice, frank)}
A
2

= D
2

A
1
part), (derek, frank), {(bert, derek), (bert, pat),
(alice, frank)}
Deductive Databases
Example:
Step 3: D
3

= {(bert, frank)
A
3

= D
3

A
2
part), (derek, frank), {(bert, derek), (bert, pat),
(alice, frank), (bert, frank)}
Step 3: D
4

= C.
The advantage of the semi-naive method is that at each step a differential term
D
i
is used in each equation instead of the whole R
i
. In this way, the time
complexity of a computation is decreased drastically.
Deductive Databases
- The magic-set rule rewriting technique
motivation:
1. During a bottom-up evaluation, too many irrelevant tuples are
evaluated.
For example, to evaluate the query sg(john, Z)? using the
following rules:
sg(X, Y) flat(X, Y),
sg(X, Y) up(X, Z), sg(Z, W), down(W, Y),
a bottom-up method will generate all sg-tuples and then makes
a selection operation to the anwsers.
2. Using the constants appearing in the query to restrict
computation.
Deductive Databases
- The magic-set rule rewriting technique
sg(X, Y) magic_sg(X) ,flat(X, Y),
sg(X, Y) magic_sg(X), up(X, Z), sg(Z, W), down(W, Y),
magic_sg(Z) magic_sg(X), up(X, Z),
magic_sg(john).
Two-phase evaluation:
1st phase: evaluate magic rules to generate a magic set.
2nd phase: evaluate modified rules, by which that magic
set is used to restrict the computation.
Deductive Databases
- Stratified databases
A stratified database is a Datalog program containing negated
predicates.
Example: Suppose that a supplier might wish to backorder items
that are not in the warehouse. It would be convenient to write:
backorder(X) item(X), warehouse(X).
Its logically equivalent form is
backorder(X), warehouse item(X).
But this rule has a different meaning : if X is an item, then
backorder it or it is stored in the warehouse. This is not what we
want.
Deductive Databases
- Prolblem: recursion via negation
p(X) q(X),
q(X) p(X).
- To avoid the recursion via negation, we introduce the concept
of stratification, which is defined by the use of a level l mapping.
level l mapping: assign each literal in the program an integer
such that if
B A
1
, , A
n

and A
i
is positive, then l(A
i
) s l(B) for all i, 1 s i s n. If A
i
is
negative, then l(B) < l(A
i
) for all i, 1 s i s n.
Deductive Databases
- Prolblem: recursion via negation
p(X) q(X),
q(X) p(X).
- To avoid the recursion via negation, we introduce the concept
of stratification, which is defined by the use of a level l mapping.
level l mapping: assign each literal in the program an integer
such that if
B A
1
, , A
n

and A
i
is positive, then l(A
i
) s l(B) for all i, 1 s i s n. If A
i
is
negative, then l(B) < l(A
i
) for all i, 1 s i s n.
Deductive Databases
- If you can assign integers to all the literals in a programusing a
level mapping, then this program is stratifiable.
p(X) q(X),
q(X) p(X).
In fact, we cannot find a level mapping for any program which
contains recursion via negation.
- Evaluation of a stratified database.
Evaluate the literals in the program from low level to the high
level.
Deductive Databases
- However, you cannot find any level mapping for the following
program:
Example:
path(X, Y) edge(X, Y),
path(X,Y) edge(X, Z), path(Z, Y),
acyclic_path(X, Y) path(X,Y), path(Y, X).
We can many label mappings for this program. The following are
just two of them:

Deductive

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Deductive

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Deductive Databases

Jan. 2012 Yangjun Chen ACS-3902 1

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen