Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [xml-dev] indexing and querying XML (not XQuery)
- From: 'Alan Gutierrez' <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:01:06 -0400
- Cc: ElektonikaMail@izzy.net, 'XML Developers List' <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <000001c5a7f7$88def140$0115a8c0@Elektonika.local>
- Mail-followup-to: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,ElektonikaMail@izzy.net,'XML Developers List' <email@example.com>
- References: <000001c5a7f7$88def140$0115a8c0@Elektonika.local>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
* Bullard, Claude L (Len) <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2005-08-23 11:34]:
> From: Robert Koberg [mailto:email@example.com]
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> > Index what? Ideas, ideas emerging from conversations, the conversations?
>> > So far, what you are describing seems to be Google. Can you out Google
>> > Google?
>> It is not like google. Google indexes HTML and it gives better rankings
>> to well marked up (according to google) HTML (which is why small
>> companies like us can get page rankings as high or higher than much
>> larger companies).
>> With an XML indexer, you can index glossentries, faqs, quizes, whatever
>> and keep them separate so if you want to run a query against just faqs,
>> you can.
>> You can do a search to get all external links (we distinguish between
>> external, internal and whatever other kind of links there might be) and
>> validate them.
> So your index is as good as the markup? Fine. That's what markup
> was created to provide (the extensibility AS meaning theory). The
> human does the intelligent analysis when they tag and the engine
> dutifully records that. That is just another indexer, not a
> semantic aggregator. Tagging makes searching easier by leveraging
> the author's intelligence.
I need to pull some of this into a blog entry, quote it. I'd be
frustrated with you for being so dismissive, if I was confident
that you're speaking from hard-won experience.
I'd like to create a semantic aggregator, or something like it,
through human intervention, but making it easier to specify the
structure of indices, or by allowing for the adjustment of
ranking by participants in a social network.
> What about content in non-tagged sources (say XML-Dev) and gamed
Aren't these two very different problems?
My solution to gamed content is accountability. That's were you
depart from the hosted indices, hand have personal indices that
have an individual's endorsement.
> How about correlation of hidden couplers?
Hidden couplers? Just Googled [hidden couplers] and the lucky
spot was one of your "Is Web 2.0 the new XML?" postings.
> Show me an engine that can intelligently index because it can
> drill for insights and provide those to the user. In other words,
> a deep analysis system can find the root causes for failures
> rather than superficial causes as might be tagged incorrectly
> something humans do consistently well: promote superstition to
> HTML scales because it is somewhat 'opinion free'. Although
> layout is a form of opinionated expression, it can be ignored.
That's a nice engine. I'm not sure how to extract knowledge from
opinion, or how to approach an algorithm that would eliminate
bias. I think through accountability, you could begin to at
least identify the bias.
Alan Gutierrez - firstname.lastname@example.org