17959528. DISAMBIGUATION OF FEATURE GRAPH DATABASES simplified abstract (AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.)
Contents
- 1 DISAMBIGUATION OF FEATURE GRAPH DATABASES
- 1.1 Organization Name
- 1.2 Inventor(s)
- 1.3 DISAMBIGUATION OF FEATURE GRAPH DATABASES - A simplified explanation of the abstract
- 1.4 Simplified Explanation
- 1.5 Potential Applications
- 1.6 Problems Solved
- 1.7 Benefits
- 1.8 Potential Commercial Applications
- 1.9 Possible Prior Art
- 1.10 Unanswered Questions
- 1.11 Original Abstract Submitted
DISAMBIGUATION OF FEATURE GRAPH DATABASES
Organization Name
AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P.
Inventor(s)
Edmond J. Abrahamian of Richmond Heights MO (US)
Ana Armenta of San Jose CA (US)
Andrew Campbell of Pleasant Hill CA (US)
Prince Paulraj of Coppell TX (US)
DISAMBIGUATION OF FEATURE GRAPH DATABASES - A simplified explanation of the abstract
This abstract first appeared for US patent application 17959528 titled 'DISAMBIGUATION OF FEATURE GRAPH DATABASES
Simplified Explanation
The abstract describes a processing system that adds features to a feature graph database based on feature ontologies and identifies duplicates within the database.
- The processing system receives a request to add a new feature to a feature graph database.
- The request includes a feature ontology with a label and relationship of the new feature.
- The system checks if the new feature is a duplicate of an existing feature in the database.
- It generates an indication of whether the new feature is a duplicate.
Potential Applications
This technology could be applied in various fields such as data management, knowledge representation, and information retrieval systems.
Problems Solved
1. Efficiently adding new features to a feature graph database. 2. Identifying and managing duplicate features within the database.
Benefits
1. Improved data organization and management. 2. Enhanced accuracy in feature identification and retrieval.
Potential Commercial Applications
Optimizing search engines, enhancing recommendation systems, and improving data integration processes.
Possible Prior Art
One possible prior art could be the use of feature ontologies in database management systems for organizing and categorizing data.
Unanswered Questions
How does the processing system handle conflicting relationships between features in the database?
The abstract does not specify how the system resolves conflicts in relationships between features.
What measures are in place to ensure the accuracy of feature duplication identification?
The abstract does not detail the specific algorithms or methods used to verify the duplication of features in the database.
Original Abstract Submitted
A processing system may obtain a request to add at least a first feature to a feature graph database, where the request comprises a first feature ontology of the first feature, and where the first feature ontology comprises: a label of the first feature and a relationship of the first feature to a concept or to another feature. The processing system may then identify whether the first feature is a duplicate of a second feature in the feature graph database based at least upon the first feature ontology and a second feature ontology of the second feature and generate an indication of whether the first feature is a duplicate in response to the identifying.
