Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Bertram Ludäscher

Publications and source records attributed to Bertram Ludäscher.

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Win-Move is Coordination-Free (Sometimes)

In a recent paper by Hellerstein [15], a tight relationship was conjectured between the number of strata of a Datalog${}^\neg$ program and the number of "coordination stages" required for its distributed computation. Indeed, Ameloot et al. [9] showed that a query can be computed by a coordination-free relational transducer network iff it is monotone, thus answering in the affirmative a variant of Hellerstein's CALM conjecture, based on a particular definition of coordination-free computation. In this paper, we present three additional models for declarative networking. In these variants, relational transducers have limited access to the way data is distributed. This variation allows transducer networks to compute more queries in a coordination-free manner: e.g., a transducer can check whether a ground atom $A$ over the input schema is in the "scope" of the local node, and then send either $A$ or $\neg A$ to other nodes. We show the surprising result that the query given by the well-founded semantics of the unstratifiable win-move program is coordination-free in some of the models we consider. We also show that the original transducer network model [9] and our variants form a strict hierarchy of classes of coordination-free queries. Finally, we identify different syntactic fragments of Datalog${}^{\neg\neg}_{\forall}$, called semi-monotone programs, which can be used as declarative network programming languages, whose distributed computation is guaranteed to be eventually consistent and coordination-free.

cs.DB↗

Scientific Workflows and Provenance: Introduction and Research Opportunities

Scientific workflows are becoming increasingly popular for compute-intensive and data-intensive scientific applications. The vision and promise of scientific workflows includes rapid, easy workflow design, reuse, scalable execution, and other advantages, e.g., to facilitate "reproducible science" through provenance (e.g., data lineage) support. However, as described in the paper, important research challenges remain. While the database community has studied (business) workflow technologies extensively in the past, most current work in scientific workflows seems to be done outside of the database community, e.g., by practitioners and researchers in the computational sciences and eScience. We provide a brief introduction to scientific workflows and provenance, and identify areas and problems that suggest new opportunities for database research.

cs.DB↗

First-Order Provenance Games

We propose a new model of provenance, based on a game-theoretic approach to query evaluation. First, we study games G in their own right, and ask how to explain that a position x in G is won, lost, or drawn. The resulting notion of game provenance is closely related to winning strategies, and excludes from provenance all "bad moves", i.e., those which unnecessarily allow the opponent to improve the outcome of a play. In this way, the value of a position is determined by its game provenance. We then define provenance games by viewing the evaluation of a first-order query as a game between two players who argue whether a tuple is in the query answer. For RA+ queries, we show that game provenance is equivalent to the most general semiring of provenance polynomials N[X]. Variants of our game yield other known semirings. However, unlike semiring provenance, game provenance also provides a "built-in" way to handle negation and thus to answer why-not questions: In (provenance) games, the reason why x is not won, is the same as why x is lost or drawn (the latter is possible for games with draws). Since first-order provenance games are draw-free, they yield a new provenance model that combines how- and why-not provenance.

cs.DB↗