a. Conflict resolution involves the decision of whether a query name, associated with multiple records, can unambiguously refer to a single one of them. b. Wikipedia. Conflict resolution for Wikipedia records is carried out on the basis the main article word count and traffic statistics. A conflict is resolved as such : i. Find the cumulative word count of words written in the articles in conflict. ii. Find the cumulative number of views resulting from the traffic to the articles in conflict. iii. For every record in the conflict, find the fraction of words and views resulting from this record by dividing by the cumulative counts. iv. Does a record have the largest fraction of both words written and page views? v. Does this record have above 66% of either words written and page views? vi. If so, the conflicted query name can be considered as being sufficiently specific to the record with these properties. c. Encyclopedia Britannica. Conflict resolution for Encyclopedia Britannica records is carried on the basis of the quantity of information snippets present in the dataset. i. Find the cumulative number of information snippets related to the records in conflicts. ii. For every record in the conflict, find the fraction of informational snippets by dividing with the cumulative count iii. If a record has greater than 66% of the cumulative total, the query name in conflict is considered to refer to this record. l1.7.A.9 Identify the most relevant name used to refer to an individual. So far, we have obtained, for all individuals in both our databases, a set of names by which they can plausibly be mentioned. From this set, we wish to identify the best such candidate and use its word frequency to observe the fame of the person at hand. This optimal name is identified on the basis of the amplitude of the word frequency, the potential ambiguities which arise from name homonimity and the quality of the word frequency time series. Examples are shown in Fig $11 and