W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2001

RE: data smushing

From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:03:22 +0000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010103115322.00dfd890@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Cc: "'Seth Russell'" <seth@robustai.net>, Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>, David Megginson <david@megginson.com>, xml-dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 09:37 AM 1/3/01 +0000, Bill dehOra wrote:

> > If
> >    [nodeX, propertyY, whatever] and;
> >    [nodeY, propertyY, whatever] and;
> >    [nodeX, rdf:type, nodeZ] and;
> >    [nodeY, rdf:type, nodeZ] and;
> >    [propertyY, atMostOneEntityValue, "yes"];
> > then
> >    smush (nodeX, nodeY).
>
>
>Isn't 'smushing' just unification hacking; am I missing something?

That's an interesting thought.

I think, however, that there's more to smushing (which I understand to mean 
detection of equivalent resources from their description and/or usage).

Unification uses a sequence of variable->subexpression substitutions to 
make two expressions the same, and is based entirely on the form of the 
expressions concerned.

Smushing, OTOH:
(a) operates in the other direction -- i.e. it seeks to determine 
equivalent identifiers rather than equivalent expressions.
(b) may depend on more than just the form of expressions used.  In some 
cases, I think domain knowledge may be needed (at least, in some levels of 
DanBri's taxonomy 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Dec/0191.html>)

However, Unification and examination of the resulting substitution set 
might prove to be an interesting technique here.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 07:12:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:47 GMT