[topicmapmail] Classification of occurrences using keywords

[Jason Cupp]

For unsupervised classification of a heterogeneous document collection, the
only reliable relationship to devine for keywords would be the "aboutness"
mentioned in "Lessons on Applying Topic Maps" ( and for collections as broad
and the WWW, even this fails )

But, I don't think we ought to outlaw "aboutness" right away. I don't think
there's been enough time to evaluate what the user experience is for
navagating semanticly dense collections information on the order of the WWW.
Maybe "aboutness" should stick around, at least for a while, as users have
generally gotten used to it and some even good at it...

What about representing both in a topicmap: the "aboutness" association and
(given standarized vocabularies & thesauri & PSIs) more meaningful
associations.

> * Lars Marius Garshol
> 
> OK, but couldn't each keyword be modelled as a topic in its own right?
> Wouldn't that allow you do say far more about each topic?

> I think we have to be careful about how we use terminology
> here. One thing is keywords attached to documents as in old-fashioned
> metadata, another is keywords in topic maps. I think keywords have no
> place in topic maps and would be curious to know what you think they
> are useful for and how you would model them.