Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

Multimedia Data Querying

  • K. Selcuk CandanEmail author
  • Maria Luisa Sapino
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_1039


By its very nature, multimedia data querying shares the three V challenges ([V]olume, [V]elocity, and [V]ariety) of the so called “Big Data” applications. Systems supporting multimedia data querying, however, must tackle additional, more specific, challenges, including those posed by the [H]igh-dimensional, [M]ulti-modal (temporal, spatial, hierarchical, and graph-structured), and inter-[L]inked nature of most multimedia data as well as the [I]mprecision of the media features and [S]parsity of the observations in the real-world.

Moreover, since the end-users for most multimedia data querying tasks are us (i.e., humans), we need to consider fundamental constraints posed by [H]umanbeings, from the difficulties they face in providing unambiguous specifications of interest or preference, subjectivity in their interpretations of results, and their limitations in perception and memory. Last, but not the least, since a large portion of multimedia data is human-centered, we also...

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

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Adali S, Bonatti PA, Sapino ML, Subrahmanian VS. A multi-similarity algebra. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 1998. p. 402–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adali S, Bufi C, Sapino ML. Ranked relations: query languages and query processing methods for multimedia. Multimed Tools Appl. 2004;24(3):197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andoni A, Indyk, P. Near-optimal hashing algorithms for approximate nearest neighbor in high dimensions. In: Proceedings of the 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science; 2006. p. 459–68.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI. Latent Dirichlet allocation. J Mach Learn Res. 2003;3(4–5):993–1022.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Candan KS, Li W-S. On similarity measures for multimedia database applications. Knowl Inf Syst. 2001;3(1):30–51.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Candan KS, Sapino ML. Data management for multimedia retrieval. Cambridge University Press; 2010. ISBN-10:0521887399, ISBN-13: 978-0521887397.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Candan KS, Li W-S, Priya ML. Similarity-based ranking and query processing in multimedia databases. Data Knowl Eng. 2000;35(3):259–98.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caroll JD, Chang JJ. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of ‘Eckart-Young’ decomposition. Psychometrika. 1970;35(3):283–319.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chianese A, Picariello A, Sansone L, Sapino ML. Managing uncertainties in image databases: a fuzzy approach. Multimed Tools Appl. 2004;23(3):237–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dalvi NN, Suciu D. Efficient query evaluation on probabilistic databases. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2004. p. 864–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fagin R. Fuzzy queries in multimedia database systems. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems; 1998. p. 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fagin R, Lotem A, Naor M. Optimal aggregation algorithms for middleware. J Comput Syst Sci. 2003;66(4):614–56.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harshman RA. Foundations of the parafac procedure: models and conditions for an “explanatory” multi-modal factor analysis. UCLA Work Papers Phon. 1970;16:1–84.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hofmann T. Probabilistic latent semantic indexing. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval; 1999. p. 50–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lakshmanan LV, Leone N, Ross R, Subrahmanian VS. ProbView: a flexible probabilistic database system. ACM Trans Database Syst. 1997;22(3):419–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li W-S, Candan KS. SEMCOG: a hybrid object-based image and video database system and its modeling, language, and query processing. Theory Pract Object Syst. 1999;5(3):163–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li C, Chang KC-C, Ilyas IF, Song S. RankSQL: Query algebra and optimization for relational top-k queries. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; 2005. p. 131–42.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pearl J. Bayesian networks: a model of self-activated memory for evidential reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Cognitive Science Society; 1985. p. 329–34.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Qi Y, Candan KS, Sapino ML. Sum-Max monotonic ranked joins for evaluating top-K twig queries on weighted data graphs. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Very Large Data Bases; 2007. p. 507–18.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tucker LR. Some mathematical notes on three-mode factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1966;31(3):279–311.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zadeh LA. Fuzzy sets. Inf Control. 1965;8(3):338–53.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang Z, Hwang S, Chang KC, Wang M, Lang CA, Chang Y. Boolean + Ranking: querying a database by K-constrained optimization. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data; n.d. p. 359–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.University of TurinTurinItaly

Section editors and affiliations

  • Vincent Oria
    • 1
  • Shin'ichi Satoh
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceNew Jersey Inst. of TechnologyNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Digital Content and Media Sciences ReseaMultimedia Information Research DivisionNational Institute of InformaticsTokyoJapan