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
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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.
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.
To review the basic properties of binary preference relations see Chomicki [10].
- 4.
Chomicky calls this connectivity [10, Definition 2.1].
- 5.
In a later version of [13], available on semanticscholar.org, the approach is extended to handle CP-theories.
- 6.
- 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.
The full algorithm is in the extended technical report version of the paper.
References
Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The semantic web. Sci. Am. 284(5), 28–37 (2001)
Klyne, G., et al.: Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structure and Vocabularies 1.0. W3C Recommendation, January 2004
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
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)
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
Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C Recommendation, March 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/
Borzsonyi, S., Kossmann, D., Stocker, K.: The skyline operator. In: Proceedings 17th International Conference on Data Engineering, pp. 421–430 (2001)
Tversky, A.: Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 76(1), 31–48 (1969)
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
Chomicki, J.: Preference formulas in relational queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 28(4), 427–466 (2003)
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)
Gueroussova, M., Polleres, A., McIlraith, S.A.: SPARQL with qualitative and quantitative preferences (extended report). University of Toronto CSRG Report 619 (2013)
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
Kießling, W., Köstler, G.: Preference SQL - design, implementation, experiences. In: 28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, pp. 990–1001 (2002)
Kießling, W., Endres, M., Wenzel, F.: The preference SQL system - an overview. IEEE Data Eng. Bull. 34(2), 11–18 (2011)
Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (2008). https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
Patel-Schneider, P.F., Martin, D.: EXISTStential aspects of SPARQL. In: The 15th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2016), October 2016
Tarjan, R.E.: Efficiency of a good but not linear set union algorithm. J. ACM 22(2), 215–225 (1975)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
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)