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: <>
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 

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


Graham Klyne
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 07:12:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC