- 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