[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [xtm-wg] Re: topic map complexity, and references
thanks for the recent discussion of TMs with a slant to the indexing/librarian community, by glenda brown & murray altheim. as an information scientist in knowledge organization with a certain sympathy for TMs, i think i understand your concerns. let me add some sketchy remarks (they became longer than i intended): glenda had asked three important questions: 1. Do you know of good introductory material? --------------------------------------------- although we are now far better off than at xml europe 2000 in paris, this is still a desideratum. what i can offer is material about how i see a cross-fertilization between knowledge organization and TMs, not about TM concepts per se. murray mentioned jack park's upcoming book. if everything goes well, there will be a lengthy chapter by me on "topic maps in knowledge organization". but much more work is necessary. 2. May TMs suffer from more complex indexing models, like e.g. PRECIS did? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- rephrased: are more complex indexing models, expressed in TMs, more, or are they less effective than simpler indexing models, expressed in TMs? answer: it depends. this is a big, open research question, and one could say much about this. yes, they may suffer. in principle, the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) principle applies, i.e. keep it as simple as possible, but not simpler. if the requirements include to search for complicated concepts with complex interrelations, i see no other way. if not, it is a waste of resources. it is true that relational indexing never became very popular. e.g. the WRU system failed for several reasons, including that it was very costly, it was very difficult to reach consensus on which roles to assign, and it was awkward to use. but the problems of historical systems and that relational indexing is is seldomly used (one exception is BIOSIS), is _NO_ argument in principle against its potential. i interpret your question as follows: are TM proponents aware of work and failure with relational indexing, i.e. experiences about limits? answer: i am, but have not lost all hope. why? one might argue that the recent renaissance of relations in indexing (in AI, e.g. in conceptual graphs or for the Semantic Web), is due to a lack of historical knowledge of other branches of knowledge. in part, this is true. but in certain niches there is also the requirement for finer-grained semantical retrieval. where, e.g., you need to reliably search for process concepts (vorgangsbegriffe), you'll find nothing better than relational indicators (relationsindi- katoren) (cf. Fugmann). analytical thinking is in favour of relational indexing, where appropriate. i hold that there exist areas where the extra cost can pay off. this has to be determined in experimental settings. (i know of no retrieval test with TMs). there is also the hope that a richer ontology can better aid automated procedures employing this ontology, so it may even save money on mass data. to a certain extent i believe in the unique value of an intellectual, domain-oriented approach, complementing others: indexing is creating interpretations for (future) usage. it is necessary to analyze domains from the viewpoints of the discourse communities the indexing (the retrieval system) is targeted for. this will lead to insights about concepts and relations. it is true that relations introduce more chances for indexer "inconsistency". this is less a problem if we allow multiple interpretations (a "correct" indexing does not exist anyway, indexing theory/philosophy and epistemology tell). in sum: i think there exist application fields where relational indexing is of value, and implementing it with TMs, too. a sound knowledge about the state of the art in indexing and ontology engineering should methodologically guide against arbitrary linking. 3. Do domains exist where it may not be possible to adequately model their structure as TMs? ------------------------------------------------------------------ my feeling is that it is possible to model any intellectual indexing with TMs (as they are hospitable enough). whether this is natural is a different question. so this is no limitation of TMs. rather, the question is about (1) can/should sophisticated indexing express arbitrary complex domain structures? (2) to which degree is this necessary/helpful for effective retrieval? murray mentions that believing in universals was the problem, and that viewpoints through scoping (a kind of partitioning the knowledge base) were one solution, also allowing for mapping between concepts. i agree. steve pepper's "towards a general theory of scope" is a valuable first step, but much more is to be done. in practice the question will be, if complex knowledge models will aid users in finding what they need, or rather confuse and distract. however, this is in part a question of the GUI (e.g. context filtering). a complex model does not necessarily mean complex navigation. i must admit that we don't have enough experience with sophisticated indexing of scientific matter in TMs yet. i know of no evaluation by library and information science or retrieval researchers. glenda, you did not provide an example of a potentially difficult domain. one might consider humanities and social sciences as more difficult to index than "hard sciences", but this is an open debate. i am currently working with viewpoints in TMs in a social sciences subdomain. all the best alex -- ---------------------------------------------- Alexander Sigel, M.A. sigel@bonn.iz-soz.de Informationszentrum Sozialwissenschaften, R&D Lennéstr. 30, D-53113 Bonn, Germany +49 228 2281 170 tel, +49 228 2281 120 fax Homepage: http://index.bonn.iz-soz.de/~sigel/ ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Small business owners... Tell us what you think! http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/ySSFAA/2U_rlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@yahooGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@yahooGroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC