Group Preferences for Query Answering in Datalog+/- Ontologies

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
  • Maria Vanina Martinez
  • Gerardo I. Simari
  • Oana Tifrea-Marciuska
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8078)


In the recent years, the Web has been changing more and more towards the so-called Social Semantic Web. Rather than being based on the link structure between Web pages, the ranking of search results in the Social Semantic Web needs to be based on something new. We believe that it can be based on ontological background knowledge and on user preferences. In this paper, we thus propose an extension of the Datalog+/- ontology language that allows for dealing with partially ordered preferences of groups of users. We focus on answering k-rank queries in this context. In detail, we present different strategies to compute group preferences as an aggregation of the preferences of a collection of single users. We then provide algorithms to answer k-rank queries for DAQs (disjunctions of atomic queries) under these group preferences. We show that such DAQ answering in Datalog+/- can be done in polynomial time in the data complexity, as long as query answering can also be done in polynomial time (in the data complexity) in the underlying classical ontology.


Polynomial Time Multiagent System Data Complexity Single User Group Preference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ackerman, M., Choi, S.Y., Coughlin, P., Gottlieb, E., Wood, J.: Elections with partially ordered preferences. Public Choice (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amer-Yahia, S., Roy, S.B., Chawla, A., Das, G., Yu, C.: Group recommendation: Semantics and efficiency. Proc. VLDB Endow. 2(1), 754–765 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beeri, C., Vardi, M.Y.: The implication problem for data dependencies. In: Even, S., Kariv, O. (eds.) ICALP 1981. LNCS, vol. 115, pp. 73–85. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C.: Preference handling — An introductory tutorial. AI Mag. 30(1), 58–86 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Kifer, M.: Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In: Proc. KR 2008, pp. 70–80. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. J. Web Sem. 14, 57–83 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chomicki, J.: Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 28(4), 427–466 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lang, J., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Salvagnin, D., Venable, K.B., Walsh, T.: Winner determination in voting trees with incomplete preferences and weighted votes. Auton. Agent. Multi-Ag. 25(1), 130–157 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Linden, G., Smith, B., York, J.: Industry report: recommendations: Item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Distributed Systems Online 4(1) (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lukasiewicz, T., Martinez, M.V., Simari, G.I.: Preference-based query answering in Datalog+/– ontologies. In: Proc.  IJCAI (in press, 2013) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manoj, M., Jacob, E.: Information retrieval on internet using meta-search engines: A review. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 67(10), 739–746 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Masthoff, J.: Group modeling: Selecting a sequence of television items to suit a group of viewers. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 14(1), 37–85 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ntoutsi, I., Stefanidis, K., Norvag, K., Kriegel, H.-P.: gRecs: A group recommendation system based on user clustering. In: Lee, S.-g., Peng, Z., Zhou, X., Moon, Y.-S., Unland, R., Yoo, J. (eds.) DASFAA 2012, Part II. LNCS, vol. 7239, pp. 299–303. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pattanaik, P.K.: Voting and Collective Choice: Some Aspects of the Theory of Group Decision-making. Cambridge University Press (1971)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B., Walsh, T.: Aggregating partially ordered preferences. J. Log. Comput. 19(3), 475–502 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stefanidis, K., Koutrika, G., Pitoura, E.: A survey on representation, composition and application of preferences in database systems. ACM TODS 36(3), 19:1–19:45 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor, A.D.: Social Choice and the Mathematics of Manipulation. Cambridge University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. Wiley (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
    • 1
  • Maria Vanina Martinez
    • 1
  • Gerardo I. Simari
    • 1
  • Oana Tifrea-Marciuska
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordUK

Personalised recommendations