- From: Graham Klyne <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:03:22 +0000
- 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 UTC