Recently, a great deal of progress has been made using nonmonotonic temporal logics to formalize reasoning about action and change. In particular, much focus has been placed on the proper representation of non-deterministic actions and the indirect effects of actions. For the latter the use of causal or fluent dependency rule approaches has been dominant. Although much recent effort has also been spent applying the belief revision/update (BR/U) approach to the action and change domain, there has been less progress in dealing with nondeterministic update and indirect effects represented as integrity constraints. We demonstrate that much is to be gained by cross-fertilization between the two paradigms and we show this in the following manner. We first propose a generalization of the PMA, called the modified MPMA which uses intuitions from the TL paradigm to permit representation of nondeterministic update and the use of integrity constraints interpreted as causal or fluent dependency rules. We provide several syntactic characterizations of MPMA, one of which is in terms of a simple temporal logic and provide a representation theorem showing equivalence between the two. In constructing the MPMA, we discovered a syntactic anomaly which we call the redundant atom anomaly that many TL approaches suffer from. We provide a method for avoiding the problem which is equally applicable across paradigms. We also describe a syntactic characterization of MPMA in terms of Dijkstra semantics. We set up a framework for future generalization of the BR/U approach and conclude with a formal comparison of related approaches.