- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:02:17 +0100
- To: " - *GK@Dial.pipex.com" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Cc: " - *www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > > 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. I think we just look to the same thing from different perspectives. Suppose we have the facts {Maaike|ed:human|} i.e. Maaike is a human {Maaike|ed:female|} i.e. Maaike is a female {Goedele|ed:woman|} i.e. Goedele is a woman then, because "human and female defines woman", we would like to detect {Maaike|ed:woman|} One can of course use different mechanisms to find that "smushed data". One possible way is using an explicit description of what we accept {{?X|ed:human|}|e:impliedBy| {?X|ed:woman|}} {{?X|ed:female|}|e:impliedBy| {?X|ed:woman|}} {{?X|ed:woman|}|e:impliedBy| {?X|ed:human|} {?X|ed:female|}} and so on ... to find a proof {{Maaike|ed:woman|}|e:impliedBy| {Maaike|ed:human|} {Maaike|ed:female|}} which can be passed as evidence. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 06:03:06 UTC