Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Keyword Indexing
Murray Altheim wrote: (01)
> cdent wrote:
> >>There's a CMU system I used at NTTC that
> >>could analyze a text and come up with a set of keywords for it. (02)
The more I think about this, the more I realize that extracting keywords
from text is, in essence, the same as a search engine. (03)
There are two ways in which such a system can provide benefit
1. The ability to define synonyms.
When equivalences are created, then all of the messages pertaining
to the early version of X (when it was called Y) can be found. (05)
Similarly, improve == improvement == improving == bettering ==...
(you get the idea -- shades of cyc) can help find important,
useful information that otherwise would not be found. (06)
The thing is, the definition of synonyms is something that could be
added to a search engine over time. A special keyword that acts
like OR, as in (x SYN y SYN z) would add the synonyms to the
search engine's glossary. (07)
2. The ability to specify meta words.
Meta words are categorziations that are *not* found in the text.
For example, [+] for an argument for, or [Query]. That makes it
possible to build up an IBIS structure. (08)
I note, however, that message-level granularity is still WAY to high,
for reasons that have been discussed at extreme depths a couple
of years ago, now. The "instant outlining" approach, coupled with
purple numbers and the categorizing capacities described above
seems to me to offer a degree of promise. (09)