Advertisement

Answering Ontological Ranking Queries Based on Subjective Reports

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
  • Maria Vanina Martínez
  • Cristian Molinaro
  • Livia Predoiu
  • Gerardo I. Simari
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8720)

Abstract

The use of preferences in query answering, both in traditional databases and in ontology-based data access, has recently received much attention, due to its many real-world applications. In this paper, we tackle the problem of query answering in Datalog+/– ontologies subject to the querying user’s preferences and a collection of subjective reports (i.e., scores for a list of features) of other users, who have their own preferences as well. All these pieces of information are combined to rank the query results. We first focus on the problem of ranking atoms in a database by leveraging reports and customizing their content according to the user’s preferences. Then, we extend this approach to deal with ontological query answering using provenance information. Though the general problem is shown to have an exponential-time data complexity upper bound, we propose a special case that has polynomial time data complexity.

Keywords

Preference Relation Subjective Report Predicate Symbol Skyline Query Conjunctive Query 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barbier, G., Feng, Z., Gundecha, P., Liu, H.: Provenance Data in Social Media. Morgan and Claypool (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    Bistarelli, S., Pini, M.S., Rossi, F., Venable, K.B.: Bipolar preference problems: Framework, properties and solving techniques. In: Azevedo, F., Barahona, P., Fages, F., Rossi, F. (eds.) CSCLP. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4651, pp. 78–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Börzsönyi, S., Kossmann, D., Stocker, K.: The skyline operator. In: Proc. ICDE, pp. 421–430 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G.: Preferences, contexts and answer sets. In: Dahl, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) ICLP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4670, p. 22. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buneman, P.: The providence of provenance. In: Gottlob, G., Grasso, G., Olteanu, D., Schallhart, C. (eds.) BNCOD 2013. LNCS, vol. 7968, pp. 7–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Kifer, M.: Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In: Proc. KR, pp. 70–80 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Chomicki, J.: Preference formulas in relational queries. TODS 28(4), 427–466 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dividino, R., Gröner, G., Scheglmann, S., Thimm, M.: Ranking RDF with provenance via preference aggregation. In: ten Teije, A., Völker, J., Handschuh, S., Stuckenschmidt, H., d’Acquin, M., Nikolov, A., Aussenac-Gilles, N., Hernandez, N. (eds.) EKAW 2012. LNCS, vol. 7603, pp. 154–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Govindarajan, K., Jayaraman, B., Mantha, S.: Preference queries in deductive databases. New Generat. Comput. 19(1), 57–86 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green, T.J., Karvounarakis, G., Tannen, V.: Provenance semirings. In: Proc. PODS, pp. 31–40 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ha, V., Haddawy, P.: Toward case-based preference elicitation: Similarity measures on preference structures. In: Proc. UAI, pp. 193–201 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lacroix, M., Lavency, P.: Preferences: Putting more knowledge into queries. In: Proc. VLDB, vol. 87, pp. 1–4 (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lukasiewicz, T., Martinez, M.V., Simari, G.I.: Preference-based query answering in Datalog+/– ontologies. In: Proc. IJCAI, pp. 1017–1023 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moreau, L.: The foundations for provenance on the Web. Found. Trends Web Sci. 2(2/3), 99–241 (2010)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stefanidis, K., Koutrika, G., Pitoura, E.: A survey on representation, composition and application of preferences in database systems. TODS 36(3), 19:1–19:45 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Straccia, U.: On the top-k retrieval problem for ontology-based access to databases. In: Pivert, O., Zadrożny, S. (eds.) Flexible Approaches in Data, Information and Knowledge Management. SCI, vol. 497, pp. 95–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Lukasiewicz
    • 1
  • Maria Vanina Martínez
    • 1
  • Cristian Molinaro
    • 2
  • Livia Predoiu
    • 1
  • Gerardo I. Simari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordUK
  2. 2.DIMESUniversità della CalabriaItaly

Personalised recommendations