Gene Ward Smith <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> nance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Anthony Nance) wrote in news:fv76ai$40t$1
> @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> This one has neither the granularity nor searchability you want, and it
>> seems to have stalled in 2004, but when one of the categories matches
>> yours, it's pretty good.
>>
>> http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/thisthat.html
>
> Thanks! It's a start, anyway. A big database with searchable keywords
would
> be great, however.
Yes it surely would. We're trying something like that locally (for
a mathematical biosciences resource), and I'm sad to say that a large
keyword-searchable database covering diverse topics and fields is
every bit as hard to do well as you'd guess. On the one hand, one
of the biggest problems is content, which could conceivably be slowly
conquered via distributed labor (e.g. user-entered). On the other
hand, one of the other biggest problems is deciding which keywords
to attach to what - lots of judgment calls and category blurring.
Tony
|
