Skip to main content

Performing Groupization in Data Warehouses: Which Discriminating Criterion to Select?

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 7337))

Abstract

In this paper, we aim to optimally identify the analyst’groups in data warehouse. For that reason, we study the similarity between the selected queries in the analytical history. Four axis for group identification are distinguished: (i) the function exerted, (ii) the granted responsibilities to accomplish goals, (iii) the source of groups identification, (iv) the dynamicity of discovered groups. A semi-supervised hierarchical algorithm is used to discover the most discriminating criterion. Carried out experiments on real data warehouse demonstrate that groupization improves upon personalization for several group types, mainly for function-based groupization.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aligon, J., Golfarelli, M., Marcel, P., Rizzi, S., Turricchia, E.: Mining Preferences from OLAP Query Logs for Proactive Personalization. In: Eder, J., Bielikova, M., Tjoa, A.M. (eds.) ADBIS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6909, pp. 84–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellatreche, L., Giacometti, A., Marcel, P., Mouloudi, H., Laurent, D.: A personalization framework for OLAP queries. In: International Workshop on Data Warehousing and OLAP (DOLAP 2005), pp. 9–18 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ben Ahmed, E., Nabli, A., Gargouri, F.: A Survey of User-Centric Data Warehouses: From Personalization to Recommendation. The International Journal of Database Management Systems (IJDMS) 3(2), 59–71 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ben Ahmed, E., Nabli, A., Gargouri, F.: Building MultiView Analyst Profile From Multidimensional Query Logs: From Consensual to Conflicting Preferences. The International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI) 9(1) (to appear, January 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Favre, C., Bentayed, F., Boussaid, O.: Evolution et personnalisation des analyses dans les entrepts de donnes: une approche oriente utilisateur. In: XXVme Congrs Informatique des Organisations et Systmes d’information et de Dcision, INFORSID 2007, Perros-Guirec, pp. 308–323 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Giacometti, A., Marcel, P., Negre, E.: A Framework for Recommending OLAP Queries. In: ACM Eleventh International Workshop on Data Warehousing and OLAP (DOLAP 2008), California, US, pp. 307–314 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jerbi, H., Ravat, F., Teste, O., Zurfluh, G.: Applying Recommendation Technology in OLAP Systems. In: Filipe, J., Cordeiro, J. (eds.) ICEIS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 24, pp. 220–233. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Klein, D., Kamvar, S.D., Manning, C.D.: From instance-level constraints to space-level constraints: making the most of prior knowledge in data clustering. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2002), CA, USA, pp. 307–314 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  9. MacQueen, J.: Some Methods for Classification and Analysis of Multivariate Observations. In: 5th Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. Prob. (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Morris, M.R., Teevan, J.: Understanding Groups’ Properties as a Means of Improving Collaborative Search Systems. In: 8th Workshop on Collaborative Information Retrieval, JCDL 2008, Pittsburgh, USA (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Provost, F., Fawcett, T., Kohavi, R.: The case against accuracy estimation for comparing induction algorithms. In: Proceeding of the 50th International Conference on Machine Learning, Madison, Wisconsin USA, pp. 445–453 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Quinlan, J.R.: Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 81–106 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ravat, F., Teste, O.: Personalization and OLAP Databases. Annals of Information Systems. New Trends in Data Warehousing and Data Analysis 3, 71–92 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rizzi, S.: New Frontiers in Business Intelligence: Distribution and Personalization. In: Catania, B., Ivanović, M., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ADBIS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6295, pp. 23–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Teevan, J., Morris, M.R., Bush, S.: Discovering and Using Groups to Improve Personalized Search. In: Proceedings of Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ben Ahmed, E., Nabli, A., Gargouri, F. (2012). Performing Groupization in Data Warehouses: Which Discriminating Criterion to Select?. In: Bouma, G., Ittoo, A., Métais, E., Wortmann, H. (eds) Natural Language Processing and Information Systems. NLDB 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7337. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31178-9_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31178-9_27

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31177-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31178-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics