Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3C20A588.C6B5A179@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:34:48 +0100
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: Semantic Relevance Rating
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0112182004120.5134-100000@lapgp.otego.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

giacomo wrote:

> > document.srr:
> > <srr:relevances xmlns:srr="..." extends="metadata.srr">
> >  <srr:context xpath="section/@title" relevance="2"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="para" relevance="1"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="strong" relevance="1.5"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="figure/@href" relevance="0"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="figure/@caption" relevance="1.5"/>
> > </srr:relevances>
> >
> > metadata.srr:
> > <srr:relevances xmlns:srr="...">
> >  <srr:context xpath="title" relevance="2"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="author/@name" relevance="2"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="author/@email" relevance="0"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="keyword" relevance="5"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="abstract" relevance="2"/>
> >  <srr:context xpath="related-concepts/concept" relevance="3.5"/>
> > </srr:relevances>
> 
> I think you missed to tell us that an SRR rates a schema not a
> document (I know this because we've talked about it privately).

Yeah, well, I thought it was evident below.

> How do you think overriding releveance values should be handled? Suppose
> the following:
> 
>  document.srr:
>  <srr:relevances xmlns:srr="..." extends="metadata.srr">
>   <srr:context xpath="section/@title" relevance="2"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="para" relevance="1"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="strong" relevance="1.5"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="figure/@href" relevance="0"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="figure/@caption" relevance="1.5"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="keyword" relevance="15"/>
>  </srr:relevances>
> 
>  metadata.srr:
>  <srr:relevances xmlns:srr="...">
>   <srr:context xpath="title" relevance="2"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="author/@name" relevance="2"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="author/@email" relevance="0"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="keyword" relevance="5"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="abstract" relevance="2"/>
>   <srr:context xpath="related-concepts/concept" relevance="3.5"/>
>  </srr:relevances>
> 
> Note the xpath to "keyword" in both SRRs.

Just as CSS do: replacement (overload). That means: 'keywork' has
relevance '5' on shared metadata markup, but has relevance '15' on the
document schema.

Did you have something different in mind?
 
> > The way the SRR sheet is associated with the document is not defined
> > here since it is another concern.
> 
> Another concern is how SRR are obtained to rate schemas.

That's what I meant.

> And also how SRR (obtained from different sources) for the exact same
> schema are handled. I think all relevance rating values in an SRR should
> sum up to a fixed value to yeald equal ratings among different sources.
> 
> But then all SRR for different schemas are equally rated. Are there SRRs
> (read schemas) which are more important than others?
> 
> >
> >                                      - o -
> >
> > The SRR solution yields a few interesting results:
> >
> > 1) the cost of 'semantizing' the information is proportional to the
> > number of schemas included in the data corpus to index, unlike RDF-like
> > solutions which costs are proportional to the entire information
> > included in the corpus.

This is where I said that SRR rate schemas. Sorry, I thought it was
clear enough.

> > For example, in a system where there are 10 different schemas and a
> > milion documents, the cost will be associated in creating SRR
> > relevance-sheets for those 10 schemas, compared to the cost of adding
> > semantic RDF information in each and every file.
> >
> > This is the exact same concept of SoC between content and style, here
> > associated to the separation between content and its semantic relevance
> > interpretation.
> 
> This is an economic and realistic approach because without automated
> RDFizability of documents nobody will pay such a prize for semantic
> searching capabilities. And talking about automated RDFizability will
> raise the question how relevant can this be made.

This is the key point.

Many people in the XML world started to show explicit bad feelings about
RDF and question the need for a semantic web if something like Google is
so powerful.

I don't like the equation RDF='semantic web' on which the W3C bases all
their work, because there isn't only one way of unlocking the
possibilities a semantically marked-up hypermedia system (see MPEG-7 for
another non-RDF attach to a semantic hypermedia effort)

> > 2) the user experience is no different from the one he/she's used to: he
> > doesn't need to know the schema of the documents nor any information
> > about metadata or metadata fields in order to obtain the information.
> 
> If she/he is guided by some tools which handles the validation according
> to the underlying schema of the document.

??? what do you mean?

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org