2014
DOI: 10.1108/ijwis-11-2013-0030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effective keyword query processing with an extended answer structure in large graph databases

Abstract: Effective keyword query processing with an extended answer structure in large graph databases Chang-Sup Park Sungchae Lim Article information:To cite this document: Chang-Sup Park Sungchae Lim , (2014),"Effective keyword query processing with an extended answer structure in large graph databases"If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are availa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The former semantics aims to find the most relevant Stainer subtrees that contain the input keywords and have the smallest total weight on the edges (Bhalotia et al , 2002; Ding et al , 2007; Golenberg et al , 2008; Kimelfeld and Sagiv, 2006; Liu et al , 2016). The latter semantics restricts the root nodes of the selected subtrees to be distinct and applies a different cost function to the subtrees which measures the total weight of the shortest paths from the root to the content nodes (Dalvi et al , 2008; He et al , 2007; Kacholia et al , 2005; Le, et al , 2014; Park, 2018a; Park and Lim, 2016). On the other hand, there have been proposed approaches to finding various types of subgraphs as desired answers to the query, such as r -radius Steiner subgraphs (Li et al , 2008), multicenter communities (Qin et al , 2009), r -cliques (Kargar and An, 2011), cohesive subgraphs (Zhu et al , 2018) and strongly connected subgraphs (Bryson et al , 2020).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The former semantics aims to find the most relevant Stainer subtrees that contain the input keywords and have the smallest total weight on the edges (Bhalotia et al , 2002; Ding et al , 2007; Golenberg et al , 2008; Kimelfeld and Sagiv, 2006; Liu et al , 2016). The latter semantics restricts the root nodes of the selected subtrees to be distinct and applies a different cost function to the subtrees which measures the total weight of the shortest paths from the root to the content nodes (Dalvi et al , 2008; He et al , 2007; Kacholia et al , 2005; Le, et al , 2014; Park, 2018a; Park and Lim, 2016). On the other hand, there have been proposed approaches to finding various types of subgraphs as desired answers to the query, such as r -radius Steiner subgraphs (Li et al , 2008), multicenter communities (Qin et al , 2009), r -cliques (Kargar and An, 2011), cohesive subgraphs (Zhu et al , 2018) and strongly connected subgraphs (Bryson et al , 2020).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Liu et al (2016) proposed an approach to finding a set of minimal and non-overlapping subtrees that do not share even internal nodes and edges, as well as content nodes; hence, the search results are too exclusive and limited. Park (2018a) presented a top- k keyword search algorithm to find subtrees that do not share any content node and have the highest query relevance under the distinct root semantics. Park (2018b) suggested a keyword search approach that relaxes the distinct root semantics to allow a limited degree of redundancy for the root nodes of the answer subtrees to obtain more diverse search results.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation