> Here are my conclusions:
> 1) It is author's duty to maintain these keywords especially if object has
> multiple versions. As far as I understand, the small number of keywords
> isn't sufficient, and the large number is impossible to maintain.
> 2) If the keywords are not taken from the text or something displayed
> with the text - they don't associate with the object as possible search
> 1) We don't need an artificial set of keywords that are not a part of the
> 2) Keywords should be generated automatically from the object text.
> 3) If author needs something that associates an object or its part with
> keywords, the author should provide a short description of the object or
> part in the object text.
We have different set of editable fields for different UMOs. Which fields
are you going to use for automatic generation? All of them? If not, how
will you know which fields content will be used for keywords creation?
> 4) Auto-generation should happen automatically after any object content
> modification. Keywords themselves are not humanly editable.
Can you please tell how keywords will be displayed on UI(if at all)?
> If we implement keywords this way, it would be zero efforts to maintain
> these keywords, and no logical inconsistencies when a set of keywords
> doesn't match the object content.
That sounds very good. However I have a question, what about translations?
Will the automatic keyword generator be able to handle different
languages, for example, japanese euroglyphus?
Are you going to generate set of keywords for every possible language?
Authoright © Total Knowledge: 2001-2008