Re: What is a better word for "de-duplication"?

Why not "unique nodes"?

Because this does not convey the meaning that they were *made* unique.
Unique nodes may have been unique all the time without any action to
extract them from a larger set.

>From: "Dimitre Novatchev" <dnovatchev@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re:  What is a better word for "de-duplication"?
>Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:43:24 -0700
>
>Certainly "duplicate elimination" is precise and clear and of course I
>knew about this phrase and still asked my initial question. Why?
>
>Because I was looking for a single word to describe the set of nodes
>resulting from duplicate elimination.
>
>While I can say
>
>     "factorised nodes"
>
>it is quite awkward to say:
>
>   "duplicate-eliminated" nodes.
>
>and
>
>  "nodes with eliminated duplicates"
>
>is a long, 4-word phrase.
>
>
>
>This explains why "factorised nodes" best serves my needs.
>
>
>
>--
>Cheers,
>Dimitre Novatchev
>---------------------------------------
>Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
>---------------------------------------
>To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
>
>
>On 8/28/06, Jim Melton <jim.melton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>I think that my serious suggestion a couple of days ago got lost
>>because of my joke.  The joke was "uniquify".  The serious suggestion
>>was "duplicate elimination".  That is very clear, not ambiguous, easy
>>to say, and doesn't depend on any vocabulary that requires further
>>explanation.
>>
>>I doubt that as much as 5% of the users of XQuery, SQL, and even XSLT
>>will be able to figure out what "node factorisation" means -- heck,
>>even I'm uncertain why you think that the term is sufficiently
>>meaningful to seriously suggest it.
>>
>>Hope this helps,
>>    Jim
>>
>>At 8/28/2006 03:45 PM, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
>> >Hi Wendell,
>> >
>> >>Honestly, if it were me (assuming I even decided to fight that
>> >>battle) I would also always say "commonly called 'deduplication'", or
>> >>something similar, to signal most readers that I was, in fact, just
>> >>using a specialized term to describe something they already know

>> >
>> >That's very good advice.
>> >
>> >So, let's from now on refer to it as:
>> >
>> >        node factorisation aka de-duplication.
>> >
>> >After repeating this sufficient number of times people will start to
>> >use the obviously better word, then the "aka" part will naturally wean
>> >out. Then hopefully people who write books will use the better phrase
>> >in their next book.
>> >
>> >Apologies to Tommie and thanks for her patience. I realize we are on
>> >the edge of what is on-topic and, as it appears everybody who wanted
>> >to have their say did so, I would appeal to close this thread unless
>> >someone finds a strikingly more appropriate phrase.
>> >
>> >Personally, I find the benefit of such terminological discussions not
>> >only in the final result but also in the fact that they make us think
>> >what is the essence of the thing being named.
>> >
>> >As such, the purpose of my asking this question has been fulfilled.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Cheers,
>> >Dimitre Novatchev
>> >---------------------------------------
>> >Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant

>> >---------------------------------------
>> >To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 8/28/06, Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>Hey Dimitre,
>> >>
>> >>At 01:57 PM 8/28/2006, you wrote:
>> >> >>Not bad -- for the advanced student, again.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"Identification" or "unique identification" might be better for
>>beginners.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then I think
>> >> >
>> >> >    "id-factorisation"
>> >> >
>> >> >or just
>> >> >
>> >> >   "factorisation"
>> >> >
>> >> >(because we know what kind of factorisation takes place) is better
>> >> >than de-duplication.
>> >>
>> >>Except for the part about having to explain it to everyone.... :-)
>> >>
>> >>Honestly, if it were me (assuming I even decided to fight that
>> >>battle) I would also always say "commonly called 'deduplication'", or
>> >>something similar, to signal most readers that I was, in fact, just
>> >>using a specialized term to describe something they already know

>> >>
>> >>Cheers,
>> >>Wendell
>> >
>>
>>========================================================================
>>Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL)     Phone: +1.801.942.0144
>>   Co-Chair, W3C XML Query WG; F&O (etc.) editor    Fax : +1.801.942.3345
>>Oracle Corporation        Oracle Email: jim dot melton at oracle dot com
>>1930 Viscounti Drive      Standards email: jim dot melton at acm dot org
>>Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA          Personal email: jim at melton dot name
>>========================================================================
>>=  Facts are facts.   But any opinions expressed are the opinions      =
>>=  only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody   =
>>=  else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand.  =
>>========================================================================
>

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb

--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk