[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> [2005-08-23 11:14]:
>
> len
>
> From: Robert Koberg [mailto:rob@koberg.com]
>
>> > Which is why I'd propose defining a full-text schema language,
>> > so XML content can be described to a full-text search engine.
>
>
>> It does sound very interesting. How would it work? What would it look
>> like? I have tried doing this with XML Schema but gave up. I had tried
>> to use annotations to give weight to different things, then I tried to
>> make a type system. For me, it was just easier to write java to handle
>> it. Now I write org.xml.sax.ext.DefaultHandler2's that suit my needs. I
>> know, not very scalable or user friendly.
> IF it is really a full-text indexing system, it scans and infers
> topics the same way a human scans and tags. It would require a
> rule base perhaps similar to a Schematron assertion engine. Past
> attempts made several passes over content to create a series of
> tagged documents that are successively refined. However, as in
> memory-based patterning systems, the more abstract the links, the
> more opinionated the system. Such systems can become very
> superstitious in exactly the same way people do. How was it
> phrased: "A schema is an opinion about a document..."
Shorter link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory-prediction_framework
Perhaps that's all I'm on about. A simple way for people to
record their opinions about a document, in a fashion that is
automated.
It could be a transform that I'd apply to someone else's
content, as you noted. I'd thought that it would be a way to
attach a ranking, and have that ranking attributed to an
individual, so one could follow an opinion back to it's source,
and draw conclusions about bias from their experience with the
source, or rather find opinions starting from a source.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
|
