LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  June 2004

ZNG June 2004

Subject:

Re: [Ex-plain] Explain-ing short names

From:

Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:51:18 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (70 lines)

> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 21:07:23 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > > From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > >   dc.title any/rel.algorithm=cori "fish squirrel"
> > >     and/rel.combine=mean
> > >   dc.author any/rel.algorithm=lr/rel.constant1=0.705 "sanderson taylor"
> > > This would thus need to be in the ZeeRex record somewhere.
> >
> > Why?  This looks to me like the kind of thing that belongs firmly in a
> > CQL context set definition, just as the description of how to
>
> Perhaps it is just the same, but here's my rationale.
>
> In order to get a new algorithm registered, they would need to
> contact me and have me add it to the context set.  Which is the same
> problem as we've resolved using URI identifiers in the understanding
> that enforced registration is bad, mmkay.

Yes, enforced registration is bad.  That's precisely why we let people
define things in context sets associated with their own URIs and do
not have a central registry of such sets.  This is a problem that we
have solved.

> The other option is to have everyone define their own algorithms in
> their own context sets and not have a single relevancy set at all.
> Which isn't as bad as it might be, but isn't very appealing either.

It appeals to me.  Isn't this a perfect example of the kind of
scenario we invented URI-identification of context sets to solve?

> Instead of rel.algorithm=cori, it would be foo_rel.cori, c3_rel.lr,
> etcetc.  The 'common' algorithms could be collected into one set and
> additional ones put into new sets or into the main one [...]

Yes.

> [...] but selecting 'common' algorithms is much the same as dipping
> your hand into a hat and pulling out folded pieces of paper.

It is exactly analogous to the problem of identifying common indexes
for searching, but in a much smaller (hence easier to research) space
than that of possible indexes.  Anyone wanting to create a socially
responsible context set already has a responsibility to find out
whether any of the elements he wants to include have already been
defined elsewhere; that's always been true and always will be so long
as we want to avoid duplication.  Exactly the same responsibility
applies to relevance and merge algorithms as to indexes.

> > What am I missing?  Specifically, what new and useful action could
> > a ZeeRex-configured client automatically take if we added the
> > information you're talking about?
>
> Without the explain section, how can you know which relevancy
> algorithms are supported at all without just trying them?

  <supports type="relationModifier">rel.algorithm</supports>
  <supports type="booleanModifier">rel.combine</supports>

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "The most important thing a father can do for his children
         is to love their mother" -- Theodore Hesburgh.

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager