Skip
repetitive navigational links
L-Soft  -  Home of  the  LISTSERV  mailing list  manager LISTSERV(R) 14.5
Skip repetitive navigational links
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (October 2004)Back to main ZNG pageJoin or leave ZNGReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional fontLog in
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 2004 22:17:51 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Acronyms
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
              (message from Robert Sanderson on Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:19:29 +0100)

(Sorry, Ralph :-) > Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:19:29 +0100 > From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> > > > 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. Yes, that's my feeling too. A core set of using-a-thesaurus indexes and modifiers could provide an unvarnished "fb.equivalent", but with a note in the context-set document that domain-specific context sets are welcome to define more specific notions of equivalence. > >>>>> 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. I don't see how that makes it "out of scope". Which scope? > 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) Yes; but I don't see how this is analogous. > 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. I toyed with suggesting that, then decided that it would be in everyone's best interests if I pretended not to have thought of it. _/|_ _______________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "Winds and tides favour the best navigators" -- Ancient Greek saying. -- Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main ZNG page

LISTSERV.LOC.GOV CataList email list search Powered by LISTSERV email list manager