Alexander Johannesen wrote:
>
> We use the indexes to cluster information, so in that sense, you can
> browse around in as many clusters as you possibly can want
That's very nearly not what I had in mind. A cluster contains only what
in some way matches a query. Whereas a real index shows everything that
is actually there in an alphabetic environment, like the example I
provided, with no restrictions on going up and down from there.
But OK, the discussion has at least shown that there is very likely
not really a demand for indexes as I tried to describe them. Now that's
a result, isn't it? There appears to be this consensus :
An NG OPAC need not have browsable, visible indexes. They may perhaps
be nice to have, for some limited purposes, but don't make them a
requirement.
>
>
> Of course it does; statistical error pruning is exactly what Google
> does to give suggestions.
Only above certain thresholds. Rare words or names are not covered by this.
>
> Maybe, just maybe, the idea of authority
> records could be made redundant through clever design. Who knows?
>
AC being as expensive as it is, that's certainly a topic to explore in
all seriousness. And we need not even do experiments ourselves. "Google
Book Search" is presumably trying very hard to do exactly this. Let's
look, once it comes out of "beta".
> I'm all for testing these things instead of saying "any good system
> must do X, Y and Z"; how else could you know?
>
Well, it's not as if we are making a fresh start into pristine terra
incognita.
There *is* a body of experience with legacy systems behind us. But of
course, what can be tested, should be tested, AGWS.
B. Eversberg
Received on Thu Jun 22 2006 - 06:50:34 EDT