Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Keyword Indexing
Murray Altheim wrote: (01)
> I suggest this:
>
> [KEYS: word1, word2, word3 ] (02)
Makes sense to me. Especially if not case sensitive. (03)
> Alex Shapiro wrote:
>
> > *3* KWD FORMAT: We need to agree on some sort of word separation
> > standard for keywords. The above thread has contained the following
> > formats: FooBar, Foo_Bar, Foo-Bar. (04)
Given the lack of a selection interface, ease and speed of typing is the jey, so
to
speak. Underscore is the hardest to hit. Dash is easier. Capital letters easest,
due to long practice and familiarity. (05)
> > *4.2* FINE GRAINED KEYWORDS: Besides basic keywords there can also be
> > fine grained keywords, such as IBIS, Google, Graphs, etc. My suggestion
> > is that instead of wasting time arguing about these, we allow any user
> > to use any keyword. New keywords will automatically be added to a database.
>
> Yes. (06)
Sounds good to me, too. (07)
> > The idea is that we should eventually settle on some common keywords by
> > convention. ...
>
> Look at the SUO list to see that this is a pointless battle. You shouldn't
> try to legislate this at all. I think we should have a topic map engine
> and some manual labour to provide synonym matching periodically, (08)
Perhaphs [KEYS: x=y] could create a synonym? Of the course, that only
works if a word doesn't like to have multiple meanings, depending on
context. We're going to need to avoid those anyway, though. (09)