[Sigia-l] multiple search index usability/conceptual model

[Broad, Jonathan]

Eric,

I don't think your case-in-point really poses too much of a problem for a
topic map approach.

It's true that you can't really get around overlapping definitions of the
same term in different CVs using topic map scopes in a single topic.  You
can, however, define *new* terms, unencumbered by political madness, and
then map those to the ambiguous homonymns, again using scopes (one of the
standard's really killer features, akin to a namespace).

So in your example, there would be three topics: short films, medium length
films, short features, and full features.  (30 min, 60 min, 60-90 min, and
over 90 min, respectively).  At least, that's how *I* would label them.

In short, where there are synonymns, decide on one term, and then use scope
to normalize them.  Where there are homonyms, break them out into separately
named topics.  Then use scope to normalize them.

Jonathan
------------
Jonathan Broad
Information Architecture/Content Management
Citizen Portal Project Development Team 



Eric Scheid wrote:

> From: Ziya Oz <ZiyaOz at earthlink.net> (17/5/02 5:40)
> >Technically it'd be quite straightforward, but tedious
> 
> It would only be straight-forward if terms were unambiguous in any 
> overlap between contexts. Searching for a "short" film in an 
> Australian 
> database would pull back products of up to 59 minutes in one 
> context, and 
> in another context would be limited to 29 minutes or less. 
> When the user 
> asks for "shorts", are they asking "show me what you think 
> 'shorts' are", 
> or are they hoping for the DWIM chip to intercept their 
> sloppy language 
> and limit to only 29 minutes or less?
> 
> Unfortunately, logic and top-down sensibilites don't apply to 
> vertical-niche databases ... they are often the end result of 
> decades of 
> political re-definitions and maneuverings, and weird things 
> creep in. For 
> example, for some mad reason there is now funding grants 
> available for 
> "short features", which are actually longer than 59 minutes 
> (or 29 mins 
> for doco's), but shorter then typical features (eg. 90 
> minutes). Don't 
> ask me why - some politician some where thought it'd be a good idea.
> 
> So now, searching for "short" can pull up 89 minute features :-(
> 
> /me runs screaming from the room
> 
>