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

[Jim Melton <jim.melton@xxxxxxx>]

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 about.
>
> 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 intelligence.
> ---------------------------------------
> 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 about.
> >
> > 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.  =
========================================================================