Home Projects Jobs Clientele Contact


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: keywords

All right, so it is wise to prepare an interface for ever developing search procedures leaving implementation for future versions?

Alexey Parshin wrote:
I don't think now it is a time for it. May be later? For now, I'd like just to implement a concept. If we decide to develop it any further than just a
list of words, then we can always re-index any object later.
For instance, for now it may be enough just to have a word in the list. But,
we can also have ether a counter (how many times word appears in the
context) - that is still a compact words list. Or, we can have all the
(meaningful) words in the content in the same order, so we can compute
distance between words and make search understand that distance.

2006/11/16, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh <ilya@total-knowledge.com>:

Are there any plans on weighting the keywords?

Alexey Parshin wrote:
> 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
> along with the text - they don't associate with the object as possible
> search conditions.
> Conclusions:
> 1) We don't need an artificial set of keywords that are not a part of
> the object.
> 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 its part in the object text.
> 4) Auto-generation should happen automatically after any object
> content modification. Keywords themselves are not humanly editable.
> 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.
> 2006/11/15, sergey@total-knowledge.com
> <mailto:sergey@total-knowledge.com> <sergey@total-knowledge.com
> <mailto:sergey@total-knowledge.com>>:
>     > 5. What if UU creates its own keyword list, asks the author to
>     edit it
>     > and does not let it go, until the author adds at least one word
>     > listed?
>     >
>     > 6. Shouldn't the keyword list to be structured in some way?
>     >
>     > 7. How keyword lists are updated? Depending on events in each
>     category
>     > the UMO belongs to? This does bring in the idea of structured
>     keyword
>     > list.
>     Regarding structuring.
>     1. Automaticaly generated keywords for the current UMO.
>     2. All "current UMO"'s children UMOs keywords(if any)
>     3. Author's custom keywords(if any)
>     From UI point of view, all keywords will be displayed in the same
>     area Keywords.
>     From DB point of view, it's up to Alexey to deside. Here is my
>     opinion:
>     We may add keywords field to every *_content table where we may
>     author's custom keywords, automaticaly generated keywords will be
>     stored
>     in keywords_list table. This will allow keywords to be part of the
>     UMO
>     versioning.
>     > --
>     >
>     > Anatoly Volynets, Co-Founder
>     > total-knowledge.com <http://total-knowledge.com>
>     > culturedialogue.org <http://culturedialogue.org>
>     >
>     >
> --
> Alexey Parshin,
> http://www.sptk.net

Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Total Knowledge. CTO


Anatoly Volynets, Co-Founder

Authoright © Total Knowledge: 2001-2008