A recent TED presentation is by Eli Pariser. He is the author of “The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding From You.” A new and very interesting book. His talk is a synopsis of how the Google personalization algorithms effect search results. Google results are influenced by your own search history and other online activity. Any system such as Amazon, Yahoo, Bing ebay shopping systems depend heavily on personalization to serve you results. Traditional databases do not use profiles (yet) but they are often based on Verity, Vivisimo, Autonomy, Fast and other mathematically based search software so they could and they do serve up different results whenever the vectors are reset - that is every time additional data is added to the system with updates or metadata enrichment.
The trip was awesome—a dream exotic vacation to Bali. It was not about eat, pray, love, but a rather unbalanced midpoint to meet my Oz-dwelling daughter. I enjoyed dashes of ecotourism and agritourism, but even in full vacation mode I couldn’t fully suppress my perspective as a taxonomist.
eGistics has released CloudDocs, a cloud-based e-document storage management solution for businesses of any size, in any vertical market.
The Autonomy folks must be getting worried about the progress of taxonomy applications and the precision and recall that such systems provide. Autonomy and Google live on relevance rankings as the return to the user. Relevance to me is a confidence game. It is the best guess of the system as to whether the results returned will actually match the user's request. If you have a big enough data set returned, certainly something in there will be useful. But the sheer amount of items the user has to review (or amount of noise they have to look at) is very annoying. So they rank the returns by relevance based on a number of statistical factors so the most likely items based on co-occurrence with terms matches and near matches will appear at the top of the list - that is, they will be relevance ranked.
The entire idea of using a controlled vocabulary, a.k.a. thesaurus, a.k.a. ontology, a.k.a. taxonomy, a.k.a. authority file, a.k.a. a pick list, a.k.a. attribute table --is to standardize the nomenclature an organization uses to tag, keyword, add descriptors, controlled vocabulary, subject heading, content tags, semantic indexing, etc., to their content so it can be found, searched, retrieved,… well, you get the idea.
This question was recently asked and addressed in a community online forum that my colleagues and I participate in quite frequently. It occurred to me that though it seems like a simple question with an even simpler answer to those of us who live, breathe and eat this stuff every day – it certainly bears revisiting.
The USDA has announced release of the 2011 edition of the on-line NAL Agricultural Thesaurus and Glossary (NALT). This release adds 3,441 new terms and 321 definitions to these vocabulary tools.
by Barbara Gilles, Access Innovations thesaurian
Observing the practices described below for building a thesaurus will help ensure:
Effective searches to enable actual retrieval
A rich and […]
by Marjorie M.K. Hlava October 2002
First published in the Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 29 No. 1, October/November […]
by John Blossom
reprinted from www.shore.com/commentary
The National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services (NFAIS) is an interesting collection of institutions and publishers joining to tackle […]