On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Mike Taylor wrote:
>> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Here's another one. You need to be able to specify just what you
>>> mean by "equivalent".
>> Isn't that taken care of by specifying a specific taxonomy?
> Cute. I'll have to think about that.
> The thing is, one can imagine a single taxonomy (= thesaurus in the
> Zthes sense) that represents multiple separate "equivalent" relations.
Then you'd need to distinguish the particular sort of equivalence, as
opposed to the taxonomy/thesaurus/ontology.
And it would be up to the experts in the domain to specify the
distinction, and hence be in its own context set.
>>>>> Oh and then how do you combine broader with equivalent?
>> Is there a good example of when it's useful to do the other way around?
>> If not, we can just say that Broader is to be handled before
>> Equivalent.
> I can't think of an example offhand where you want equivalence
> processed first, but that most certainly doesn't mean there couldn't
> be one, and I wouldn't want to make the mistake of perpetrating a
> design that prevents this.
On second thoughts, it seems out of scope. Otherwise we need to come up
with processing rules for various combinations of modifiers that relate
to the term data, most of which will be obvious.
For example,
/fb.broader<3/cql.stem
Do you apply the stemming before or after the broader? (The answer is, of
course, that you stem the results of the expansion, otherwise you'll not
find any expanded results)
There could be a rule that relation modifiers that function on the term
data should be placed in the order of execution.
eg: foo =/fb.broader<3/fb.equivalent/cql.stem/cql.phonetic tyrannosaurus
is broader then equivalent then stem then phonetic.
Rob
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::. L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I
