I would like to avoid an extra field. At least, as a database construction. If author really wants to push certain keywords not mentioned anywhere in the text - he can add an annotation with such words.
Normally - it should be not necessary. I see no use in keywords not used in the text unless these keywords are trying to describe a binary object. But then we better provide a text description of such object anyway. Here is the example:
<umo title="Great Wall of China>
<text> This is the only object build by Humanity that can be seen from the Moon. This is BS, BTW. I tried to look it up in Google maps and had a hard time finding it.
<attachment type="picture" file="GreatWall.jpg" storage="We_have_to_come_up_with_something">
<annotation> The picture of The Great Wall taken in 1999 from the plane </annotation>
<keywords> Big Grey Wall </keywords>
While indexing this fragment, we may collect all the keywords from <text> tag contents. We may ignore everything from <attachment> but <annotation> and <keywords> contents.
Now, if the author removes a picture from this UMO, the keywords are rebuilt, and we have no reference on that picture in the keywords anymore (in this version of the UMO).
> 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 cannot just tell author to provide a short description of the object
somewhere. UI has to have required field for that purpose, for example
Short Description. But in this case we get back to having additional field
again(that purpose was served by Keywords field).
If you intend to use, for example, course Content field for keywords
generation, you may end up with generation a bunch of unrelated keywords.
> Alexey Parshin,