A logical foundation for deductive object-oriented databases
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, a large number of deductive object-oriented database languages have been proposed. The earliest of these languages had few object-oriented features, and more and more features have systematically been incorporated in successive languages. However, a language with a clean logical semantics that naturally accounts for all the key object-oriented features, is still missing from the literature. This article takes us another step towards solving this problem. Two features that are currently missing are the encapsulation of rule-based methods in classes, and nonmonotonic structural and behavioral inheritance with overriding, conflict resolution and blocking. This article introduces the syntax of a language with these features. The language is restricted in the sense that we have omitted other object-oriented and deductive features that are now well understood, in order to make our contribution clearer. It then defines a class of databases, called well-defined databases , that have an intuitive meaning and develops a direct logical semantics for this class of databases. The semantics is based on the well-founded semantics from logic programming. The work presented in this article establishes a firm logical foundation for deductive object-oriented databases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it