Abstract:
A method may comprise comparing a first data set with a second data set, the first data set associating a first plurality of names with a first plurality of roles, and the second data set associating a second plurality of names with a second plurality of roles. The method may further comprise generating a third data set based on an outcome of the comparing, such that the third data set associates a subset of the first plurality of names with a subset of the second plurality of roles. Apparatuses, methods, and software for performing these and other functions are also described.

Description:
BACKGROUND 
       [0001]    Electronic television program guides typically allow the viewer to display information about particular television shows, such as the names of the actors and directors involved in the television shows, as well as their roles. What the viewer may not realize is that the process of collecting this information can be extremely inefficient; it can be time-consuming and expensive. Moreover, much of the process typically requires a considerable amount of human involvement to ensure that the information is relatively accurate. 
         [0002]    One reason that the information collection process is so inefficient is that the information often contains inaccuracies, and may exclude certain information altogether. Examples of well-known sources of such information include Internet Movie Database (IMDB) (www.imdb.com), All Movie Guide (AMG) (www.allmovie.com), and Tribune Media Services (TMS). 
         [0003]    What is needed is a way to collect and merge information, such as television show information, from multiple sources, while maintaining a reasonable degree of accuracy. 
       SUMMARY 
       [0004]    Aspects as described herein are directed to merging data from two or more sources to produce a merged set of data. For instance, in the context of television show information, references to the same person may be matched between sources where the person is indicated as having the same relationship with a television show (e.g., indicated as being an actor in a particular television show). Then, the most reliable biographical information may be chosen from amongst the sources, and associated with the person. In some cases, the matching process may produce ambiguous results, which may trigger special handling. By merging two or more of source data sets together, the merged data set may potentially be more complete, and contain fewer inaccuracies, than any one of the source data sets taken individually. 
         [0005]    Further aspects are directed to comparing a first data set with a second data set, the first data set associating a first plurality of names with a first plurality of roles, and the second data set associating a second plurality of names with a second plurality of roles; and generating a third data set based on an outcome of the comparing, such that the third data set associates a subset of the first plurality of names with a subset of the second plurality of roles. 
         [0006]    Still further aspects are directed to receiving a first data set representing relationships between a first plurality of names with a first plurality of events, and associating the first plurality of names with a plurality of first identifiers; receiving a second data set representing relationships between a second plurality of names with a second plurality of events, and associating the second plurality of names with a plurality of second identifiers; for each of the plurality of first identifiers, associating a third identifier with the first identifier; determining a subset of the relationships of the second data set that each corresponds to at least one of the relationships of the first data set; for each of the subset of relationships of the second data set, associating the second identifier of the name that is part of that relationship of the second data set with the third identifier of the name in the at least one corresponding relationship of the first data set; and generating a third data set representing the associations between the first and third identifiers and the associations between the second and third identifiers. 
         [0007]    Yet further aspects are directed to receiving a first data set representing relationships between a first plurality of names with a first plurality of events, associating the first plurality of names with a plurality of first identifiers; receiving a second data set representing relationships between a second plurality of names with a second plurality of events; and for each of at least some of the relationships of the second data set, performing only one of the following depending upon the relationships of the first data set: associating the relationship of the second data set with one of the first identifiers, or associating the relationship of the second data set with a second identifier. In addition, a third data set may be generated representing the associations between the relationships of the second data set with the first and second identifiers. 
         [0008]    These and other aspects of the disclosure will be apparent upon consideration of the following detailed description. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0009]    A more complete understanding of the present disclosure and the potential advantages of various aspects described herein may be acquired by referring to the following description in consideration of the accompanying drawings, in which like reference numbers indicate like features, and wherein: 
           [0010]      FIG. 1  is a functional block diagram of an illustrative system that may be used for performing various functions related to merging data from multiple data sets. 
           [0011]      FIG. 2  is a flow chart showing illustrative steps that may be performed by the system of  FIG. 1 , for merging two data sets that provide unique identifiers for each person or other entity included therein. 
           [0012]      FIGS. 3 and 4  functionally show examples of data to be merged from two data sets, in connection with the process of  FIG. 2 . 
           [0013]      FIG. 5  is a flow chart showing illustrative steps that may be performed by the system of  FIG. 1 , for merging two data sets wherein at least one of the data sets does not provide a unique identifier for a person or other entity included therein. 
           [0014]      FIG. 6  functionally shows an example of data to be merged from a non-identifier data set with an existing data set, in connection with the process of  FIG. 5 . 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0015]      FIG. 1  is a functional block diagram of an illustrative system that may be used for performing various functions related to merging multiple data sets. In this example, the system includes a computer  101 , storage  102 , a user input device  103 , a user output device  104 , a network  105 , Source  1 , Source  2 , and Source  3 . 
         [0016]    A “computer” as referred to herein (such as computer  101 ) broadly includes any electronic, electro-optical, and/or mechanical device, or system of physically separate such devices, that is able to process and manipulate information, such as in the form of data. Non-limiting examples of a computer include one or more personal computers (e.g., desktop or laptop), servers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and/or a system of these in any combination or subcombination. In addition, a given computer may be physically located completely in one location or may be distributed amongst a plurality of locations (i.e., may implement distributive computing). 
         [0017]    A computer typically includes hardware that may execute software and/or be configured in hardware to perform specific functions. The software may be stored on a computer-readable medium in the form of computer-readable instructions. A computer may read those computer-readable instructions, and in response perform various steps as defined by those computer-readable instructions. Thus, any functions attributed to a computer as described herein may be implemented by the computer, such as by reading and executing such computer-readable instructions, and/or by any hardware subsystem (e.g., a processor) from which the computer is composed. 
         [0018]    The term “computer-readable medium” as used herein includes not only a single physical medium or single type of medium, but also a combination of one or more physical media and/or types of media. Examples of a computer-readable medium include, but are not limited to, one or more memories, hard drives, optical discs (such as CDs or DVDs), magnetic discs, and magnetic tape drives. 
         [0019]    Such a computer-readable medium may store computer-readable instructions (e.g., software) and/or computer-readable data (i.e., information that may or may not be executable). In the present example, storage  102  may be or include such a computer-readable medium, and may store computer-executable instructions and/or data used by computer  101 . While storage  102  is functionally shown in  FIG. 1  as separate from computer  101 , storage  102  may be physically integrated with computer  101 , physically separate from computer  101 , or both (such as where storage  102  comprises multiple media). 
         [0020]    User input device  103  may be used for receiving user input from a human and providing an indication of the user input to computer  101 . Examples of user input device  103  include, but are not limited to, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch-sensitive display or pad, a microphone, and/or a video camera. Likewise, user output device  104  may be used for receiving output from computer  101  and providing an indication of the output in a form that can be sensed by a human. Examples of user output device  104  include, but are not limited to, a display, a printer, and an audio speaker. Whenever user input and user output are described herein, such user input and user output may be provided, respectively, via user input device  103  and user output device  104 . 
         [0021]    Network  105  may serve to communicatively couple computer  101  with Sources  1 ,  2 , and  3 , and may be any type of network or combination of networks. Examples of network  105  include, but are not limited to, the Internet, an intranet, a local-area network (LAN), a landline telephone network, a satellite communication network, and a cellular telephone network or other type of wireless network. In other embodiments, computer  101  may be directly coupled to Sources  1 ,  2 , and/or  3  without intervening network  105 . In still further embodiments, data from Sources  1 ,  2 , and/or  3  may be provided to computer  101  and/or to storage  102  in an alternative way, such as by delivery of the stored data on a computer-readable medium. 
         [0022]    Sources  1 ,  2 , and  3  may themselves also include a computer and storage. The computer at those sources may further include a web server (where network  105  includes the Internet). Sources  1 ,  2 , and  3  may be used to provide data to be merged by computer  101 . Non-limiting examples of Sources  1 ,  2 , and  3  may include Internet Movie Database (IMDB) (www.imdb.com), All Movie Guide (AMG) (www.allmovie.com), and Tribune Media Services (TMS). Thus, in some embodiments, Sources  1 ,  2 , and/or  3  may appear as web pages from the point of view of computer  101 . Therefore, computer  101  may also be configured to execute a web browser and/or other software configured to communicate with the web pages generated by Sources  1 ,  2 , and/or  3 . In addition, while three sources are shown in this example, any plural number of sources may be used. 
         [0023]    In operation, computer  101  may collect multiple data sets from Sources  1 ,  2 , and/or  3 , and store these data sets in storage  102 . In the following discussions, the data set from Source  1  will be referred to as Data Set  1 , the data set from Source  2  will be referred to as Data Set  2 , and the data set from Source  3  will be referred to as Data Set  3 . The various data sets may or may not be in a similar format. Once the data sets are fully collected (or in parallel with data set collection), computer  101  may merge some or all of these data sets to produce a merged data set. An example of how this merging may occur is described next with reference to  FIGS. 2 and 5 . Some or all of the steps described in connection with  FIGS. 2 and 5  may be performed by, for example, computer  101 . 
         [0024]    Referring to  FIG. 2 , in step  201  computer  101  may collect Data Set  1  and Data Set  2 , in preparation for merging of these two data sets. The data sets that are collected may be, for instance, the entire database of information provided by a data source such as a web site, or it may be a subset thereof. The collected data sets may be stored in storage  102 . Each of the data sets, as stored in storage  102  and/or as provided by Sources  1  and  2 , may associate people with television shows and their roles in those television shows. An example is shown in  FIG. 3 . In this example, Data Set  1  associates a person named “Adam Apple” with an identifier WT 56, with a Movie  1 , and with a Sitcom  2 , and further associates Adam Apple as being an actor in Movie  1  and a producer of Sitcom  2 . Data Set  2  also associates “Adam Apple” with Movie  1  and Sitcom  2 , and further associates Adam Apple as being an actor in Movie  1  and an executive producer of Sitcom  2 . 
         [0025]    The term “television show” as used herein is intended to broadly include any type of entertainment video product that was, is, or may be displayed on a television set. Examples of a television show include, but are not limited to, sitcoms or other television series such as soap operas and other dramatic series, movies (both theatrical and made-for-television movies), documentaries, commercials, news shows and coverage, sports shows, and sports events. 
         [0026]    Returning to  FIG. 2 , in step  202 , computer  101  may normalize the data in Data Sets  1  and/or  2 . The purpose of normalizing the data in this example may be to cause the data from Data Sets  1  and  2  to be in the same or a similar format as each other. Another purpose may be to reduce the number of terms used in a data set. An example of this is also described with reference to  FIG. 3 . As shown in  FIG. 3 , while Data Set  1  associates Adam Apple as being a “producer” of Sitcom  2 , Data Set  2  associates Adam Apple as being an “executive producer” of Sitcom  2 . While these descriptions are not necessarily conflicting with each other, they are not identical. Therefore, it may be desirable to change the description in Data Set  2  to a more generic categorical term, such a “producer.” 
         [0027]    This type of normalization may be used for any terms in the data sets. Another example of such a hierarchy (where generic terms may replace more detailed terms) may include replacing “screenwriter” with “writer.” Thus, in one example, it may be desirable to reduce all relational terms between the person and the television show to, for instance, “actor,” “producer,” “director,” and “writer.” As will be seen later, this normalization may make it easier to match or otherwise correspond person/television show relationships between data sets. In alternative embodiments, the data sets themselves may not be modified, and instead the comparison of relationships may take into account the various categories, such matching up, for instance, “screenwriter” with “writer” and “executive producer” with “producer.” 
         [0028]    In the present example, it is assumed that each person in Data Sets  1  and  2  has a unique associated identifier (ID). For example, referring to  FIG. 3 , in Data Set  1 , Adam Apple is associated with the ID WT56, which uniquely identifies that person from all other persons in Data Set  1 . The reason for this is that sometimes two different people may have the same name, and so such an ID that is unique within the data set is often used so that such people may be distinguished from each other. As another example, Data Set  2  may assign the ID 2304 to the same person, Adam Apple, in which that ID is unique to Data Set  2 . 
         [0029]    After normalization, in step  203  computer  101  assigns a new merged ID to each identifier in Data Set  1 , which will be used in the merged data set to be created. The merged ID may be determined in any manner desired, such as canonically (e.g., in numerical sequential order such as 0001, 0002, 0003, etc.), randomly, or by parsing data from the person&#39;s entry in the source data set. In any event, each merged ID should be unique for that person within the merged data set. So, for example, Adam Apple with an ID of WT56 from Data Set  1  may become, in the new merged data set, Adam Apple with a merged ID of 0001. And, in the new merged data set, there will also be an association between merged ID 0001 and Data Set  1  ID WT56. 
         [0030]    Next, in step  204 , computer  101  compares Data Sets  1  and  2 , in this case by searching for relation correspondences between Data Set  1  and Data Set  2 . A relation defines the association between a person&#39;s name and a television show involving that person. For example, Data Set  1  shows a relation that Adam Apple is an Actor in Movie  1 , and another a relation that Adam Apple is a producer of Sitcom  2 . To determine corresponding relations, computer  1  may compare the relations between Data Set  1  and Data Set  2 , and then determine whether they correspond to each other. In other words, it is determined whether a relation in Data Set  2  is the same as a relation in Data Set  1 . This comparison may look for an exact match in some embodiments. In other embodiments, there may be other features that are used to see if the relations, while not producing an exact textual match, refer to the same association of the same person to the same television show. For instance, in the example of  FIG. 3 , there is an exact match between Data Sets  1  and  2  showing the relationship of Adam Apple being an actor in movie  1 . However, as to Adam Apple&#39;s relationship with Sitcom  2 , Data Set  1  indicates Adam Apple a producer and Data Set  2  indicates Adam Apple as an executive producer. If this categorization has not been previously normalized in step  202 , then the comparison may have to take these differences into account and possibly determine that both relations are referring to the same association between person and television show. If this categorization has already been normalized, then it is likely in this example that Data Set  2  would have indicated Adam Apple as simply a “producer.” In that case, there would be an exact match between those two associations. 
         [0031]    Returning to  FIG. 2 , for each corresponding relation, in step  205  the source ID is associated with the merged ID that was already created for that person in step  203 . Thus, in the example of  FIG. 3 , source ID 2304 would be associated with merged ID 0001 (which has also been previously associated with source ID WT56). 
         [0032]    In step  206 , mappings of relationships between Data Sets  1  and  2  that are not one-to-one (i.e., those that are one-to-plural or plural-to-one), or are otherwise inconsistent, are flagged in the new merged data set. For example, referring to  FIG. 4 , Data Set  1  shows Steve Smith only as a writer in Movie  1 , and Data Set  2  shows Steve Smith only as a director of Movie  1 . This difference may mean a variety of things. For instance, in actuality Steve Smith may be both an actor and a director in Movie  1 , or alternatively one of Data Sets  1  or  2  is incorrect. In some embodiments, this difference may be considered an inconsistency and so the entry might be flagged in step  206 . In other embodiments, the system may regard this as a case where Data Set  1  and Data Set  2  each contain information that the other does not. Thus, this example may not be considered an inconsistency at all. 
         [0033]    In step  207 , a new merged ID is then assigned to each ID of Data Set  2  that is not already assigned a new merged ID. In the example of  FIG. 3 , Data Set  2  also includes another person Peter Piper with an ID of  17 P that is not included in Data Set  1 . In this example, a new merged ID (such as 0002) would be added to the merged data set and associated with ID 17P. Thus, at the end of step  207 , the new merged data set in this example would associate merged ID 0001 with source IDs WT56 and 2304, and associate merged ID 0002 with source ID 17P. 
         [0034]    Next, in step  208 , computer  101  adds biographical data for each merged ID, that is available from one or more of the source Data Sets  1  and/or  2 . Biographical data may include, for instance, a description of the person&#39;s professional achievements and/or a description of the person&#39;s characteristics, personality, private life, etc. In some embodiments, the biographical data that is chosen for the merged data set may be taken from that source Data Set that is considered to be more reliable. In other words, Data Set  1  may be considered more reliable than Data Set  2 , or vice versa. In further embodiments, the data set from which the biographical data is taken may be made on a case-by-case basis, such as based on the available biographical data itself (e.g., the longer and/or more complete biographical data may be used). 
         [0035]    In step  209 , those entries in the merged data set that were flagged in step  206  may be manually reviewed and/or modified, since those entries may be more likely to contain errors. Of course, any of the entries may be manually reviewed and/or modified, as desired. However, by flagging suspect entries, this may reduce the number of entries that would in practice be actually manually reviewed. 
         [0036]      FIG. 5  shows another example flowchart in which a data set (Data Set  3 , in this case) is merged with another data set, wherein Data Set  3  does not include unique source IDs. For instance, in this example, Data Set  3  identifies each person by name only. In this example, there is more opportunity for errors and ambiguities. For example,  FIG. 6  shows a situation where an ambiguity occurs. In the existing merged data set, there are two persons named John Jones, however in the existing merged data set, each instance of John Jones has its own merged ID (67 and 175, respectively) that distinguishes the two persons. Data Set  3  also has an entry for John Jones. However, it is not clear whether the John Jones of Data Set  3  should correspond to the John Jones associated with merged ID 67, the John Jones associated with merged ID 175, or a completely different John Jones. Based on the information provided, there is no way to know whether the John Jones in Data Set  3  is the same as either of the John Jones&#39;s of the existing merged data set. 
         [0037]    Accordingly, it may be desirable to handle the merging of such a non-ID data set in a special manner. Also in this example, and as shown in the figures, the result of the process of  FIG. 2  (i.e., the merged data set) may be used as an input to the process of  FIG. 5 . So, in this example, it will be assumed that Data Set  3  is being merged with the merged data set produced by the process of  FIG. 2 . However, it will be understood that the process of  FIG. 5  may be used to merge any two or more data sets in which at least one of the data sets does not include unique IDs for the persons described therein, other than those persons&#39; names. 
         [0038]    In step  501 , the data from Data Set  3  is collected, and in step  502  the data from Data Set  3  is normalized, in the same manner as in step  202 . Then, in step  503 , any relations in Data Set  3  that are already included in the existing merged data set are thrown out. For example, referring again to  FIG. 6 , the entry in Data Set  3  referring to John Jones being an actor in Movie  1  may be thrown out, because that relation is already included in the existing merged data set (specifically, the relation in the existing merged data set indicating that the John Jones having a merged ID of 67 is an actor in Movie  1 ). However, the relation of John Jones being an actor in Movie  2  would not be thrown out from Data Set  3  because that specific relation is not already included in the existing merged data set. As an alternative, rather than actually throwing out certain entries from Data Set  3 , those entries in Data Set  3  that are redundant to the existing merged data set may be simply ignored for the remainder of the  FIG. 5  process. 
         [0039]    Next, step  504  is performed for each relation in Data Set  3  that is not already included in the existing data set (e.g., that is not already included in the merged data set from the process of  FIG. 2 ). In the example of  FIG. 6 , the new relations in Data Set  3  would be the following three: John Jones being an actor in Movie  2 ; Tiny Tim being an actor in Movie  4 ; and Tiny Tim being an actor in Movie  5 . For each new relation of Data Set  3 , the following is performed using four possible situations A, B, C, and D, on a relation-by-relation basis. If the existing merged data set contains a matching or otherwise corresponding name to the name in the Data Set  3  relation, and that name in the existing data set is marked as containing a non-source-id- relation, then situation A is engaged. Otherwise, one of situations B, C, and D is engaged. 
         [0040]    If the name in the Data Set  3  relation matches (or otherwise corresponds to) a name in the merged data set, and there is a merged ID associated with that name that is marked as containing non-source-id relations, then situation A is engaged, and step  505  is performed, in which the relation for the name in the Data Set  3  relation is assigned to the existing merged ID. In this particular example, there would not be more than one merged ID for a given name that is marked as containing non-source-ID relations. 
         [0041]    Alternatively, if the name in the Data Set  3  relation matches (or otherwise corresponds to) exactly one name in the existing merged data set, then situation B is engaged and so step  505  is performed. That entry is marked in the merged data set as containing a non-source-ID relation. 
         [0042]    Alternatively, if the name in the Data Set  3  relation matches (or otherwise corresponds to) multiple names in the merged data set, then situation C is engaged, causing step  506  to be performed, in which a new merged ID is created and associated with the name in Data Set  3  and the relation for that name in Data Set  3  is associated with the new merged ID. Alternatively, if the name in the Data Set  3  relation does not match (or otherwise correspond to) any name in the merged data set, then situation D is engaged, and so also step  506  is performed. In both situations C and D, that new merged ID is marked in the merged data set as containing a non-source-ID relation (e.g., by adding a flag value to that entry). 
         [0043]    Also, after performing step  506  in situations C and D, then in step  507  the biographical data is collected from the respective Data Set  3  relation and associated with the respective merged ID. 
         [0044]    After all of the new Data Set  3  relations have been processed in steps  505 ,  506 , and/or  507 , then in step  508 , the merged data set may be made available for manual review and/or modification. It may be desired, for instance, that only those entries flagged as being from non-ID sources are manually reviewed and modified as appropriate. However, any of the entries may be reviewed and/or modified if desired. 
         [0045]    Once the merged data set is created using the processes of  FIGS. 2  and/or  5 , it may be used as source data for electronic program guides (EPGs) implemented on users&#39; television set-top boxes. Alternatively, the merged data set may be provided to viewers and/or content providers in any other form, such as via a web page on the Internet. The latter may be particularly useful where movies and other content are provided to viewers via the Internet rather than traditional television broadcast or cable television. 
         [0046]    Thus, various examples have been provided that allow for the merging of two or more source data sets. A potential result of merging the source data sets is a merged data set that includes a subset of data from each of the source data sets. In particular, where each of the source data sets relates certain persons (or other entities) in roles with regard to certain television shows (or other events), then the merged data set may associate some of the names of the entities from one of the source data sets with some of the roles from another of the source data sets. 
         [0047]    While these examples have been in the context of merging data sets relating people with television shows, the techniques described herein may be used in a variety of different data set contexts. For example, these examples may instead have used a different type of entity than a person, such as a corporation name, a sports team name, or the like. Additionally, these examples may instead have used a different type of event than a television show, such as an Internet-provided event (e.g., a movie provided to a viewer over the Internet), a sporting event, play, political debate, whether or not such events are televised. Also, it will be understood that movies in theatres may also be used rather than or in addition to those shown on television. Finally, while certain illustrative roles or relations have been described between the entities (e.g., persons) and events (e.g., television shows), other roles may be used as the content dictates. For example, where the event is a sporting event, then the entity may be a sports player and the role or relation of the sports player to the sporting event may be the position played on the team, or whether that person was a coach or team owner, etc.