Re: keywords

[Anatoly Volynets <av@total-knowledge.com>]

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
> > not
> > >     > 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
> > text
> > >     area Keywords.
> > >     From DB point of view, it's up to Alexey to deside. Here is my
> > humble
> > >     opinion:
> > >     We may add keywords field to every *_content table where we may
> > store
> > >     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
> > http://www.total-knowledge.com

--

Anatoly Volynets, Co-Founder
total-knowledge.com
culturedialogue.org