[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content

Comparative Preferences in SPARQL

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11313))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Sometimes one does not want all the solutions to a query but instead only those that are most desirable according to user-specified preferences. If a user-specified preference relation is acyclic then its specification and meaning are straightforward. In many settings, however, it is valuable to support preference relations that are not acyclic and that might not even be transitive, in which case though their handling involves some open questions. We discuss a definition of desired solutions for arbitrary preference relations and show its desirable properties. We modify a previous extension to SPARQL for simple preferences to correctly handle any preference relation and provide translations of this extension back into SPARQL that can compute the desired solutions for all preference relations that are acyclic or transitive. We also propose an additional extension that returns solutions at multiple levels of desirability, which adds additional expressiveness over prior work. However, for the latter we conjecture that an effective translation to a single (non-recursive) SPARQL query is not possible.

A poster of part of this paper is being presented at ISWC 2018. An extended technical report version of this paper, including proofs and the main algorithm, is available at http://polleres.net/publications/patel-schneider-etal-2018TR.pdf

Axel Polleres’ work was supported under the Distinguished Visiting Austrian Chair Professors program hosted by The Europe Center of Stanford University.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
GBP 19.95
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
GBP 35.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
GBP 44.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    In databases, skyline involves a multiway combination of totally ordered comparisons between the values in tuples; qualitative preferences here instead allow an arbitrary comparison relation.

  2. 2.

    SPARQL 1.1 provides a basic mechanism for such external services (e.g., to look up or compute current prices or exchange rates), using the SERVICE keyword [11].

  3. 3.

    To review the basic properties of binary preference relations see Chomicki [10].

  4. 4.

    Chomicky calls this connectivity [10, Definition 2.1].

  5. 5.

    In a later version of [13], available on semanticscholar.org, the approach is extended to handle CP-theories.

  6. 6.

    https://jena.apache.org/documentation/query/.

  7. 7.

    A domination cycle is minimal if the only domination relationships between elements of the cycle are those from one element of the cycle to the next.

  8. 8.

    The full algorithm is in the extended technical report version of the paper.

References

  1. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284(5), 28–37 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Klyne, G., et al.: Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structure and Vocabularies 1.0. W3C Recommendation, January 2004

    Google Scholar 

  3. Siberski, W., Pan, J.Z., Thaden, U.: Querying the semantic web with preferences. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 612–624. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11926078_44

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Gueroussova, M., Polleres, A., McIlraith, S.A.: SPARQL with qualitative and quantitative preferences. In: 2nd International Workshop on Ordering and Reasoning (OrdRing 2013), at ISWC 2013. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1059 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Troumpoukis, A., Konstantopoulos, S., Charalambidis, A.: An extension of SPARQL for expressing qualitative preferences. In: d’Amato, C., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10587, pp. 711–727. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68288-4_42

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C Recommendation, March 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/

  7. Borzsonyi, S., Kossmann, D., Stocker, K.: The skyline operator. In: Proceedings 17th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 421–430 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tversky, A.: Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 76(1), 31–48 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nurmi, H.: Making sense of intransitivity, incompleteness and discontinuity of preferences. In: Zaraté, P., Kersten, G.E., Hernández, J.E. (eds.) GDN 2014. LNBIP, vol. 180, pp. 184–192. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07179-4_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Chomicki, J.: Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 28(4), 427–466 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Buil-Aranda, C., Arenas, M., Corcho, O., Polleres, A.: Federating queries in SPARQL 1.1: Syntax, semantics and evaluation. J. Web Semant. 18(1), 1–17 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gueroussova, M., Polleres, A., McIlraith, S.A.: SPARQL with qualitative and quantitative preferences (extended report). University of Toronto CSRG Report 619 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rosati, J., Di Noia, T., Lukasiewicz, T., De Leone, R., Maurino, A.: Preference queries with ceteris paribus semantics for linked data. In: Debruyne, C., et al. (eds.) On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2015 Conferences. OTM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9415. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26148-5_28

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kießling, W., Köstler, G.: Preference SQL - design, implementation, experiences. In: 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 990–1001 (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Kießling, W., Endres, M., Wenzel, F.: The preference SQL system - an overview. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 34(2), 11–18 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (2008). https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/

  17. Patel-Schneider, P.F., Martin, D.: EXISTStential aspects of SPARQL. In: The 15th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2016), October 2016

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tarjan, R.E.: Efficiency of a good but not linear set union algorithm. J. ACM 22(2), 215–225 (1975)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter F. Patel-Schneider .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Patel-Schneider, P.F., Polleres, A., Martin, D. (2018). Comparative Preferences in SPARQL. In: Faron Zucker, C., Ghidini, C., Napoli, A., Toussaint, Y. (eds) Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. EKAW 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11313. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03667-6_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03667-6_19

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03666-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03667-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics