- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:24:54 +0100
- To: "Steve Cayzer" <steve.cayzer@hp.com>, "Miles, AJ (Alistair) " <A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>
The ordering does look like it could make life easier for app implementations, but- > I see where you are going with 'ordered' mappings, but I wonder if your > solution isn't a little brittle. > I mean, having defined 6 ordered mappings, what happens when you need > another, numbered say 3.5? I don't think that would be a problem, simply insert the new mapping into the ordered list -the numbering isn't too important. But I think there are a couple of related issues - firstly the loss of the absolute relevance level (narrow-match, broad-match) might mean you end up with really weak matches being given the same significance as strong ones. This may not be an issue in practice - nearest is probably what you'd want while searching. The other potential issue is how to handle the matching up the taxo trees: relevance 1. Arts/Movies/Titles/M/Matrix_Series/ 2. Arts/Movies/Titles/M 3. Arts/Movies/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/ 4. Arts/Movies/Genres 5. Arts/Movies/ > A way round this would be to allow relationships between mappings. > So a mapping to Arts/Movies/Titles/M/Matrix_Series/ is 'better' than (more > relevant than? more specific than?) a mapping to > Arts/Movies/Genres/Science_Fiction_and_Fantasy/ Yep, that sounds like it could do the same job as the ordering in a (probably) more versatile fashion. Cheers, Danny.
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 04:34:04 UTC