Trusted execution environments (TEEs) can be used to protect the content of the data during query computation, while supporting differential-private (DP) queries in TEEs provides record privacy when query output is revealed.

Competency Questions (CQs) are natural language questions outlining and constraining the scope of knowledge represented by an ontology. Despite that CQs are a part of several ontology engineering methodologies, we have observed that the actual publication of CQs for the available ontologies is very limited and even scarcer is the publication of their respective formalisations in terms of, e.g., SPARQL queries. This paper aims to contribute to addressing the engineering shortcomings of using CQs in ontology development, to facilitate wider use of CQs. In order to understand the relation between CQs and the queries over the ontology to test the CQs on an ontology, we gather, analyse, and publicly release a set of 234 CQs and their translations to SPARQL-OWL for several ontologies in different domains developed by different groups. We analysed the CQs in two principal ways. The first stage focused on a linguistic analysis of the natural language text itself, i.e., a lexico-syntactic analysis without any presuppositions of ontology elements, and a subsequent step of semantic analysis in order to find patterns. This increased diversity of CQ sources resulted in a 5-fold increase of hitherto published patterns, to 106 distinct CQ patterns, which have a limited subset of few patterns shared across the CQ sets from the different ontologies. Next, we analysed the relation between the found CQ patterns and the 46 SPARQL-OWL query signatures, which revealed that one CQ pattern may be realised by more than one SPARQL-OWL query signature, and vice versa. We hope that our work will contribute to establishing common practices, templates, automation, and user tools that will support CQ formulation, formalisation, execution, and general management.

Fair division is the problem of dividing one or several goods amongst two or more agents in a way that satisfies a suitable fairness criterion. That is, fair division may be considered part of the larger research area of multiagent resource allocation (Chevaleyre et al., 2006). What is special about fair division is the explicit focus on fairness concerns. These notes give a succinct introduction to the field, focusing on formal and computational aspects that are particularly relevant to research in Computational Social Choice (Chevaleyre et al., 2007b) and Multiagent Systems (Wooldridge, 2009). We begin by briefly outlining how fair division fits into (and relates to) these two disciplines. Like voting, the archetypical instance of a social choice problem, fair division amounts to selecting an outcome from a set of possible collective agreements, given the individual preferences of a group of agents. There are however two main differences when compared to voting. The first difference is that, typically, voting theory assumes that agents (voters) have ordinal preferences (that is, they rank the available candidates and can say for any two candidates which one they like more), while in the context of fair division we usually assume that agents have cardinal preferences (that is, each agent has got a utility function mapping possible outcomes to appropriate numerical values). The second difference is that a fair division problem comes with a certain internal "structure" that is typically absent from problems in voting:

The best performing algorithms for a particular oversubscribed scheduling application, Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) scheduling, appear to have little in common. Yet, through careful experimentation and modeling of performance in real problem instances, we can relate characteristics of the best algorithms to characteristics of the application. In particular, we find that plateaus dominate the search spaces (thus favoring algorithms that make larger changes to solutions) and that some randomization in exploration is critical to good performance (due to the lack of gradient information on the plateaus). Based on our explanations of algorithm performance, we develop a new algorithm that combines characteristics of the best performers; the new algorithms performance is better than the previous best. We show how hypothesis driven experimentation and search modeling can both explain algorithm performance and motivate the design of a new algorithm.

We describe a general approach to optimization which we term `Squeaky Wheel' Optimization (SWO). In SWO, a greedy algorithm is used to construct a solution which is then analyzed to find the trouble spots, i.e., those elements, that, if improved, are likely to improve the objective function score. The results of the analysis are used to generate new priorities that determine the order in which the greedy algorithm constructs the next solution. This Construct/Analyze/Prioritize cycle continues until some limit is reached, or an acceptable solution is found. SWO can be viewed as operating on two search spaces: solutions and prioritizations. Successive solutions are only indirectly related, via the re-prioritization that results from analyzing the prior solution. Similarly, successive prioritizations are generated by constructing and analyzing solutions. This `coupled search' has some interesting properties, which we discuss. We report encouraging experimental results on two domains, scheduling problems that arise in fiber-optic cable manufacturing, and graph coloring problems. The fact that these domains are very different supports our claim that SWO is a general technique for optimization.

The best performing algorithms for a particular oversubscribed scheduling application, Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) scheduling, appear to have little in common. Yet, through careful experimentation and modeling of performance in real problem instances, we can relate characteristics of the best algorithms to characteristics of the application. In particular, we find that plateaus dominate the search spaces (thus favoring algorithms that make larger changes to solutions) and that some randomization in exploration is critical to good performance (due to the lack of gradient information on the plateaus). Based on our explanations of algorithm performance, we develop a new algorithm that combines characteristics of the best performers; the new algorithm's performance is better than the previous best. We show how hypothesis driven experimentation and search modeling can both explain algorithm performance and motivate the design of a new algorithm.