skip to main content
research-article

Ontology-Based Query Answering with Group Preferences

Published:17 December 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Web has recently been evolving into a system that is in many ways centered on social interactions and is now more and more becoming what is called the Social Semantic Web. One of the many implications of such an evolution is that the ranking of search results no longer depends solely on the structure of the interconnections among Web pages—instead, the social components must also come into play. In this article, we argue that such rankings can be based on ontological background knowledge and on user preferences. Another aspect that has become increasingly important in recent times is that of uncertainty management, since uncertainty can arise due to many uncontrollable factors. To combine these two aspects, we propose extensions of the Datalog+/-- family of ontology languages that both allow for the management of partially ordered preferences of groups of users as well as uncertainty, which is represented via a probabilistic model. We focus on answering k-rank queries in this context, presenting different strategies to compute group preferences as an aggregation of the preferences of a collection of single users. We also study merging operators that are useful for combining the preferences of the users with those induced by the values obtained from the probabilistic model. We then provide algorithms to answer k-rank queries for DAQs (disjunctions of atomic queries) under these group preferences and uncertainty that generalizes top-k queries based on the iterative computation of classical skyline answers. We show that such DAQ answering in Datalog+/-- can be done in polynomial time in the data complexity, under certain reasonable conditions, as long as query answering can also be done in polynomial time (in the data complexity) in the underlying classical ontology. Finally, we present a prototype implementation of the query answering system, as well as experimental results (on the running time of our algorithms and the quality of their results) obtained from real-world ontological data and preference models, derived from information gathered from real users, showing in particular that our approach is feasible in practice.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. M. Ackerman, S.-Y. Choi, P. Coughlin, E. Gottlieb, and J. Wood. 2012. Elections with partially ordered preferences. Public Choice 157, 1/2, 145--168.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. S. Amer-Yahia, S. Roy, A. Chawla, G. Das, and C. Yu. 2009. Group recommendation: Semantics and efficiency. Proc. VLDB Endow. 2, 1, 754--765. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. C. Beeri and M. Y. Vardi. 1981. The implication problem for data dependencies. In Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 115, Springer, 73--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. S. Börzsönyi, D. Kossmann, and K. Stocker. 2001. The skyline operator. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE, 421--430. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R. Brafman and C. Domshlak. 2009. Preference handling: An introductory tutorial. AI Mag. 30, 1, 58--86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and M. Kifer. 2008. Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. AAAI Press, 70--80.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and T. Lukasiewicz. 2012. A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. J. Web Sem. 14, 57--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and A. Pieris. 2010. Query answering under non-guarded rules in Datalog+/--. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6333, Springer, 1--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. J. Chomicki. 2003. Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 28, 4, 427--466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. R. Fagin, R. Kumar, and D. Sivakumar. 2003. Comparing top k lists. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 17, 1, 134--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. M. Finger, R. Wassermann, and F. Cozman. 2011. Satisfiability in EL with sets of probabilistic ABoxes. In Description Logics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 745.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. W. Gaertner. 2009. A Primer in Social Choice Theory: Revised Edition, Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. M. Gartrell, X. Xing, Q. Lv, A. Beach, R. Han, S. Mishra, and K. Seada. 2010. Enhancing group recommendation by incorporating social relationship interactions. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work. ACM Press, 97--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. G. Gottlob, T. Lukasiewicz, M. V. Martinez, and G. I. Simari. 2013. Query answering under probabilistic uncertainty in Datalog+/-- ontologies. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 69, 1, 37--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. G. Gottlob, T. Lukasiewicz, and G. I. Simari. 2011a. Answering threshold queries in probabilistic Datalog+/-- ontologies. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Scalable Uncertainty Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6929, Springer, 401--414. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. G. Gottlob, G. Orsi, and A. Pieris. 2011b. Ontological queries: Rewriting and optimization. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE, 2--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. C. Jung and C. Lutz. 2012. Ontology-based access to probabilistic data with OWL QL. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7649, Springer, 182--197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Lang, M. S. Pini, F. Rossi, D. Salvagnin, K. B. Venable, and T. Walsh. 2012. Winner determination in voting trees with incomplete preferences and weighted votes. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 25, 1, 130--157. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. G. Linden, B. Smith, and J. York. 2003. Industry report: Amazon.com recommendations: Item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Computing 7, 1, 76--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. T. Lukasiewicz, M. V. Martinez, G. Orsi, and G. I. Simari. 2012. Heuristic ranking in tightly coupled probabilistic description logics. In Proceedings of the Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. AUAI, 554--563.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. T. Lukasiewicz, M. V. Martinez, and G. I. Simari. 2013a. Preference-based query answering in Datalog+/-- ontologies. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IJCAI/AAAI, 1017--1023. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. T. Lukasiewicz, M. V. Martinez, and G. I. Simari. 2013b. Preference-based query answering in probabilistic Datalog+/-- ontologies. In Proceedings of the Conference on Ontologies, DataBases, and Applications of Semantics for Large Scale Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8185, Springer, 501--518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. T. Lukasiewicz, M. V. Martinez, G. I. Simari, and O. Tifrea-Marciuska. 2013c. Group preferences for query answering in Datalog+/-- ontologies. In Proceedings of the SUM. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8078, Springer, 360--373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. T. Lukasiewicz, M. V. Martinez, G. I. Simari, and O. Tifrea-Marciuska. 2013d. Query answering in probabilistic Datalog+/-- ontologies under group preferences. In Proceedings of the WI. IEEE Computer Society, 171--178. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. M. Manoj and E. Jacob. 2008. Information retrieval on internet using meta-search engines: A review. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 67, 10, 739--746.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. U. Marjit, K. Sharma, and U. Biswas. 2012. Provenance representation and storage techniques in linked data: A state-of-the-art survey. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 38, 9, 23--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. J. Masthoff. 2004. Group modeling: Selecting a sequence of television items to suit a group of viewers. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 14, 1, 37--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. J. Noessner and M. Niepert. 2011. ELOG: A probabilistic reasoner for OWL EL. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6902, Springer, 281--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. E. Ntoutsi, K. Stefanidis, K. Nørvåg, and H.-P. Kriegel. 2012. Fast group recommendations by applying user clustering. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7532, Springer, 126--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. P. K. Pattanaik. 1971. Voting and Collective Choice: Some Aspects of the Theory of Group Decision-Making. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. M. S. Pini, F. Rossi, K. B. Venable, and T. Walsh. 2009. Aggregating partially ordered preferences. J. Log. Comput. 19, 3, 475--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. I. Rahwan and G. R. Simari. 2009. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. 1st Ed. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. K. Stefanidis, G. Koutrika, and E. Pitoura. 2011. A survey on representation, composition and application of preferences in database systems. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 36, 3, 19:1--19:45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. A. D. Taylor. 2005. Social Choice and the Mathematics of Manipulation. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. M. Wooldridge. 2009. An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. Wiley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Yelp. 2012. Yelp Dataset Challenge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. X. Zhang and J. Chomicki. 2011. Preference queries over sets. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, 1019--1030. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Ontology-Based Query Answering with Group Preferences

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!