 |
 |
Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> not the right approach. And yet...I wish I could explain why it seems as >> though the clustering can tell us something. > > > Well, what is it you think the clustering can tell you something > _about_? This is an interesting topic to me. > > I'm not sure the clustering can tell you anything about relevance to > the user. I'm not seeing it. I mean, the number of items that are > members of a FRBR work set really just indicates how many 'versions' > (to be imprecise) of that work exist. But the number of 'versions' of > a work that exist doesn't really predict how likely that work (or any > of it's versions) is to be of interest to a user, does it? But maybe > you're thinking of something I'm missing, I'm curious what you're > thinking about. Yes, that's exactly what I'm stuck on. If "more important" or "more popular" works tend to have more manifestations, then there might be some signal as to probability of relevance in there. Which could be factored in (in some *small* way). But I'm not sure whether/how one would test that "if". At the moment you have me convinced that it's a red herring. > <...> > So many questions. But that's what makes it interesting. I am very > interested in checking out the system you end up with, Colleen, it > sounds interesting. If it's publically internet accessible, please do > share it with us when there's something interesting to look at. > Here's a URL FWIW at this point in time---with a whole bunch of caveats..FRBRization experiments are not reflected in there, the UI is partially baked, etc. etc....and things will still be changing for the next few months. When it's closer to baked, I'll send it out again. http://recommend-dev.cdlib.org/xtf/search?style=melrec&brand=melrec