Relaxing RDF queries based on user and domain preferences
- 174 Downloads
Research in cooperative query answering is triggered by the observation that users are often not able to correctly formulate queries to databases such that they return the intended result. Due to lacking knowledge about the contents and the structure of a database, users will often only be able to provide very broad queries. Existing methods for automatically refining such queries based on user profiles often overshoot the target resulting in queries that do not return any answer. In this article, we investigate methods for automatically relaxing such over-constrained queries based on domain knowledge and user preferences. We describe a framework for information access that combines query refinement and relaxation in order to provide robust, personalized access to heterogeneous resource description framework data as well as an implementation in terms of rewriting rules and explain its application in the context of e-learning systems.
KeywordsQuery relaxation User modeling Preferences ECA rules
- Assosiation of Computing Machinery (2002). The ACM Computer Classification System. http://www.acm.org/class/1998/.
- Baader, F., & Nipkow, T. (1998). Term rewriting and all that. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Hoos, H. H., & Poole, D. (1999). Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-99) (pp. 71–80). Morgan Kaufmann: Stockholm.Google Scholar
- Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., Shimony, S. E., & Silver, Y. (2005). TCP-nets for preferences over sets. In IJCAI-05 Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling at International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Edinburgh, Scottland, (July). Available at: http://wikix.ilog.fr/wiki/pub/Preference05/WebHome/P07.pdf.
- Brase, J. (2005). Usage of metadata. Phd thesis, University of Hannover.Google Scholar
- Broeskstra, J., & Kampman, A. (2004). Serql: A second generation RDF query language. In SWAD – Europe Workshop on Semantic Web Storage and Retrieval. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (November).Google Scholar
- Ceri, S. (1992). A declarative approach to active databases. In F. Golshani (Ed.), ICDE (pp. 452–456). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
- Chomicky, J. (2003). Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 28(4):1–40 (December).Google Scholar
- Dolog, P., & Schäfer, M. (2005). A framework for browsing, manipulating and maintaining interoperable learner profiles. In L. Ardissono, P. Brna, & A. Mitrović (Eds.), Proc. User Modeling 2005: 10th International Conference, UM 2005, LNAI, (Vol. 2715). Edinburgh: Springer (July).Google Scholar
- Dolog, P., Henze, N., Nejdl, W., & Sintek, M. (2004). Personalization in distributed e-learning environments. In Proc. of WWW2004 — The Thirteen International World Wide Web Conference. New York: ACM Press (May).Google Scholar
- Dolog, P., Stuckenschmidt, H., & Wache, H. (2006). Robust query processing for personalized information access on the semantic web. In H. L. Larsen, G. Pasi, D. O. Arroyo, T. Andreasen, & H. Christiansen (Eds.), Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Flexible Query Answering Systems (FQAS 2006) (pp. 343–355), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4027, 7–10 June 2006. Milan, Italy: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dolog, P., Simon, B., Klobucar, T., & Nejdl, W. (2008). Personalizing access to learning networks. ACM Transactions on Internet Technologies. Special Issue on Distance Education, 8(2) (May).Google Scholar
- Gutierrez, C., Hurtado, C., & Mendelzon, A. O. (2004). Foundations of semantic web databases. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS). Paris, France, (June).Google Scholar
- Hayes, P. (2004). RDF Semantics. Recommendation, W3C.Google Scholar
- Hurtado, C., Poulovassilis, A., & Wood, P. (2006). A relaxed approach to RDF querying. In ISWC’2006 — 5th International Semantic Web Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Athens: Springer-Verlag (November).Google Scholar
- Kießling, W. (2002). Foundations of preferences in database systems. In Proceedings of 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDBO2) (pp. 311–322).Google Scholar
- Kießling, W., & Güntzer, U. (1994). Database reasoning—a deductive framework for solving large and complex problems by means of subsumption. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Information Systems and Artificial Intelligence, LNCS (Vol. 777, pp. 118–138). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Kießling, W., & Köstler, G. (2002). Preference SQL - design, implementation, experiences. In Proceedings of 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB02) (pp. 990–1001).Google Scholar
- Lacroix, M., & Lavency, P. (1987). Preferences: Putting more knowledge into queries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (pp. 217–225). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Nilsson, M. (2001) IMS Metadata RDF binding guide. http://kmr.nada.kth.se/el/ims/metadata.html, (May).
- Stojanovic, N. (2003). On analysing query ambiguity for query refinement: The librarian agent approach. In Conceptual Modeling – ER 2003, volume 2813 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 490–505). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Stuckenschmidt, H. (2004). Similarity-based query caching. In 6th International Conference on Flexible Query Answering System (FQAS), volume 3055 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 295–306). Lyon: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
- Stuckenschmidt, H., van Harmelen, F., de Waard, A., Scerri, T., Bhogal, R., van Buel, J., et al. Exploring Large Document Repositories with RDF Technology: The DOPE Project. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(3), 34–40.Google Scholar
- The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2008). http://dublincore.org/.