Query answering over uncertain RDF knowledge bases: explain and obviate unsuccessful query results
- 5 Downloads
Abstract
Several large uncertain knowledge bases (KBs) are available on the Web where facts are associated with a certainty degree. When querying these uncertain KBs, users seek high-quality results, i.e., results that have a certainty degree greater than a given threshold \(\alpha \). However, as they usually have only a partial knowledge of the KB contents, their queries may be failing i.e., they return no result for the desired certainty level. To prevent this frustrating situation, instead of returning an empty set of answers, our approach explains the reasons of the failure with a set of \(\alpha \)minimal failing subqueries (\(\alpha \)MFSs) and computes alternative relaxed queries, called \(\alpha \)maXimal succeeding subqueries (\(\alpha \)XSSs), that are as close as possible to the initial failing query. Moreover, as the user may not always be able to provide an appropriate threshold \(\alpha \), we propose three algorithms to compute the \(\alpha \)MFSs and \(\alpha \)XSSs for other thresholds, which also constitutes a relevant feedback for the user. Multiple experiments with the WatDiv benchmark show the relevance of our algorithms compared to a baseline method.
Keywords
Uncertain knowledge bases RDF quad SPARQL queries Empty answers Named graph Reification QuadstoreNotes
References
- 1.Rodríguez M, Goldberg S, Wang DZ (2016) Sigmakb: multiple probabilistic knowledge base fusion. Proc VLDB Endow 9(13):1577–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Hoffart J, Suchanek FM, Berberich K, Weikum G (2013) YAGO2: a spatially and temporally enhanced knowledge base from Wikipedia. Artif Intell 194:28–61MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 3.Carlson A, Betteridge J, Kisiel B, Settles B, Hruschka ER Jr, Mitchell TM (2010) Toward an architecture for never-ending language learning. In: AAAI, vol 5, p 3Google Scholar
- 4.Dong X, Gabrilovich E, Heitz G, Horn W, Lao N, Murphy K, Strohmann T, Sun S, Zhang W (2014) Knowledge vault: a web-scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion. In: KDD’14, pp 601–610Google Scholar
- 5.Wu W, Li H, Wang H, Zhu KQ (2012) Probase: a probabilistic taxonomy for text understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data. ACM, pp 481–492Google Scholar
- 6.Harris S, Garlik AS (2013) Sparql 1.1 query language (march 2013). W3C RecommendationGoogle Scholar
- 7.Hartig O (2009) Querying trust in RDF data with tSPARQL. In: ESWC 2009Google Scholar
- 8.Tomaszuk D, Pak K, Rybiński H (2013) Trust in RDF graphs. In: ADBIS’13Google Scholar
- 9.Saleem M, Ali MI, Hogan A, Mehmood Q, Ngomo AN (2015) LSQ: the linked SPARQL queries dataset. In: ISWC’15, pp 261–269Google Scholar
- 10.Mottin D, Marascu A, Roy SB, Das G, Palpanas T, Velegrakis Y (2013) A probabilistic optimization framework for the empty-answer problem. Proc VLDB Endow 6(14):1762–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Godfrey P (1997) Minimization in cooperative response to failing database queries. Int J Coop Inf Syst 6(2):95–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Fokou G, Jean S, Hadjali A, Baron M (2017) Handling failing RDF queries: from diagnosis to relaxation. Knowl Inf Syst (KAIS) 50(1):167–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Erling O, Mikhailov I (2009) RDF support in the virtuoso DBMS. In: Pellegrini T, Auer S, Tochtermann K, Schaffert S (eds) Networked knowledge—networked media. Springer, Berlin, pp 7–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Dellal I, Jean S, Hadjali A, Chardin B, Baron M (2017) On addressing the empty answer problem in uncertain knowledge bases. In: Benslimane D, Damiani E, Grosky WI, Hameurlain A, Sheth A, Wagner RR (eds) Database and expert systems applications. Springer International Publishing, pp 120–129Google Scholar
- 15.Pérez J, Arenas M, Gutierrez C (2009) Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Trans Database Syst (TODS) 34(3):16:1–16:45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Mannila H, Toivonen H (1997) Levelwise search and borders of theories in knowledge discovery. Data Min Knowl Discov 1(3):241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Aluç G, Hartig O, Özsu MT, Daudjee K (2014) Diversified stress testing of RDF data management systems. In: ISWC’14, pp 197–212Google Scholar
- 18.Gallego MA, Fernández JD, Martínez-Prieto MA, de la Fuente P (2011) An empirical study of real-world SPARQL queries. In: Proceedings of the USEWOD workshop co-located with WWW’11Google Scholar
- 19.Carothers G (ed) (2014) Rdf 1.1 n-quads. W3C RecommendationGoogle Scholar
- 20.Schreiber G, Raimond Y (eds) (2014) Rdf 1.1 primer. W3C recommendationGoogle Scholar
- 21.Sahoo SS, Nguyen V, Bodenreider O, Parikh P, Minning T, Sheth AP (2011) A unified framework for managing provenance information in translational research. BMC Bioinform 12:461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Schueler B, Sizov S, Staab S, Tran DT (2008) Querying for meta knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, pp 625–634Google Scholar
- 23.Straccia U, Lopes N, Lukacsy G, Polleres A (2010) A general framework for representing and reasoning with annotated semantic web data. In: AAAIGoogle Scholar
- 24.Galárraga L, Teflioudi C, Hose K, Suchanek FM (2015) Fast rule mining in ontological knowledge bases with AMIE+. VLDB J 24(6):707–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Campinas S (2014) Live SPARQL auto-completion. In: ISWC’14 (posters and demos), pp 477–480Google Scholar
- 26.Pham M, Passing L, Erling O, Boncz PA (2015) Deriving an emergent relational schema from RDF data. In: WWW’15, pp 864–874Google Scholar
- 27.Hurtado CA, Poulovassilis A, Wood PT (2009) Ranking approximate answers to semantic web queries. In: ESWC’09, pp 263–277Google Scholar
- 28.Huang H, Liu C, Zhou X (2012) Approximating query answering on RDF databases. J World Wide Web Internet Web Inf Syst (WWW) 15(1):89–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Fokou G, Jean S, Hadjali A (2014) Endowing semantic query languages with advanced relaxation capabilities. In: ISMIS’14, pp 512–517Google Scholar
- 30.Calí A, Frosini R, Poulovassilis A, Wood P (2014) Flexible querying for SPARQL. In: ODBASE’14, pp 473–490Google Scholar
- 31.Hogan A, Mellotte M, Powell G, Stampouli D (2012) Towards fuzzy query-relaxation for RDF. In: ESWC’12, pp 687–702Google Scholar
- 32.Elbassuoni S, Ramanath M, Weikum G (2011) Query relaxation for entity-relationship search. In: ESWC’11, pp 62–76Google Scholar
- 33.Dolog P, Stuckenschmidt H, Wache H, Diederich J (2009) Relaxing RDF queries based on user and domain preferences. J Intell Inf Syst (JIIS) 33(3):239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Fokou G, Jean S, HadjAli A, Baron M (2016) RDF query relaxation strategies based on failure causes. In: ESWC’16, pp 439–454Google Scholar
- 35.Reddy KB, Kumar PS (2013) Efficient trust-based approximate SPARQL querying of the web of linked data. In: Uncertainty reasoning for the semantic web II. Springer, pp 315–330Google Scholar
- 36.Jannach D (2009) Fast computation of query relaxations for knowledge-based recommenders. AI Commun 22(4):235–248MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 37.Pivert O, Smits G (2015) How to efficiently diagnose and repair fuzzy database queries that fail. In: Fifty years of fuzzy logic and its applications, studies in fuzziness and soft computing. Springer, pp 499–517Google Scholar