Abstract

There is a need for handling preferences in relational query languages that arises naturally in real-world applications dealing with possible choices generated by the current state of the world captured in the relational data model. To address this problem, we propose a fully declarative language for encoding preferences conditional on the current state of the world represented as a relation database instance. The language has constructs for various kinds of preferences, and we show how to interpret (sets of) its formulae; even sets of formulae that encode conflicting preferences. This leads to a flexible approach for specifying the most desirable choices of autonomous systems that act on behalf of their designers. Throughout the paper, we use an example of a control support system for a bank surveillance to motivate the need for our framework and to illustrate it.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work supported by the project GAP202/10/0761\(\backslash \)Web Semantization.

References

  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V. (eds.): Foundations of Databases: The Logical Level. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: A non-monotonic logic for specifying and querying preferences. In: Kaelbling, L.P., Saffiotti, A. (eds.) IJCAI, pp. 1549–1550. Professional Book Center (2005).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: Cp-nets: a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 21, 135–191 (2004). http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/jair/jair21.html#BoutilierBDHP04
  4. 4.
    Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C.: Database preference querie revisited. Technical Report, TR2004-1934, Cornell University, Computing and Information Science (2004).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C.: Preference handling–an introductory tutorial. Technical Report, 08–04, Computer Science Department, Ben-Gurion University, Negev Beer-Sheva, Israel 84105 (2007).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brafman, R.I.: Relational preference rules for control. In: Brewka, G., Lang, J. (eds.) KR, pp. 552–559. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewka, G., Niemelä, I., Truszczynski, M.: Preferences and nonmonotonic reasoning. AI Magazine 29(4), 69–78 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chomicki, J.: Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 28(4), 427–466 (2003). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/958942.958946 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Algorithms for a non-monotonic logic of preferences. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3571, pp. 281–292. Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Non-monotonic reasoning with various kinds of preferences. In: Brafman, R.I., Junker, U. (eds.) IJCAI-05 Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling, pp. 112–117. Edinburgh, Scotland (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kießling, W.: Foundations of preferences in database systems. In: Proceedings of the 28th VLDB Conference, pp. 311–322. Hong Kong, China (2002).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neves, R.D.S., Kaci, S.: Combining totalitarian and ceteris paribus semantics in database preference queries. Logic J. IGPL 18(3), 464–483 (2010)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Wright, G.H.: The Logic of Preference. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1963)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computer Science of Academy of Sciences of the Czech RepublicPrague 8Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations