6050Re: Decentralised Meta-Data Search Strategies
- Aug 7 5:20 PM--- In decentralization@y..., Lucas Gonze <lgonze@p...> wrote:
> Sam said:
> > I'm still not sure which
> > difference between FASD and Plesh you are trying to highlight. I
> > mean both FASD and Plesh allow you to specify some meta-data,
> > a search and then retrieve a URI, that URI can then be used inthe
> > another network to retrieve a document. In my understanding of
> > term "overlay network" it applies to both Plesh and FASD.FASD
> The difference I had in mind is that Plesh is a network dedicated to
> carrying metadata (even though it can also carry other data), while
> has to cooexist with other uses of Freenet.Right, so here I think we have a small misunderstanding, which I will
try to correct in the paper. FASD does not have to exist with other
uses of Freenet. One can set up a dedicated network to support FASD
that does nothing but support meta-data search, and then use a
completely different network to actually retrieve the documents.
Thus it would be quite possible to create a FASD network dedicated to
I was wondering whether that
> focus would let Plesh optimize the topology, and the answer is no.Yes, not sure about that. FASD and Plesh both can't support
> Actually, FASD seems to have a more flexible search strategy.
substring matching at present, which seems to be a fairly fundamental
function of using hashes. As I note in my paper there may be some
work around that involves hashing all available sub-strings, but
superficially this would seem impractical in both cases. The main
difference from a user point of view would appear to be the type of
query supported, RDF or TFIDF Vector.
> But I'll leave off with this until I get my real job taken care of
> read the FASD paper all the way through during the weekend. PrettyThanks again for the feedback.
> interesting paper so far...
Good luck with that real job stuff :-)
- << Previous post in topic