Re: The future of meta-indices/libraries

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Next message: Martin Hamilton: "Re: Stab in the dark"
• Previous message: Steve Waterbury: "Re: The future of meta-indices/libraries"
• Maybe in reply to: Stan Letovsky: "Re: The future of meta-indices/libraries "

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 20:43:31 --100
Message-id: <9403171931.AA11153@ulua.hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: The future of meta-indices/libraries 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 903

In message <9403171918.AA06528@dev.gdb.org>, David Kulp writes:
>> I think a simple "standardised" classification system using the
>> meta-info for Internet resources would make it easy to bootstrap
>> topic curators (or their moral equivalent).  It also conjures up
>> amusing pictures of intelligent clients which used the
>> classification info to weed out (say) unwanted hits in search
>> results - a la Usenet killfiles!
>> 
>> Martin
>
>I agree with Martin.  Instead of relying on information curators to
>organize information in an ad-hoc manner, why not set-up an initial
>very detailed full tree and ask information providers to climb
>this standard tree, hanging their ornaments on the proper,
>accepted branches.

The USENET newsgroup hierarchy is handy. It's widely deployed, with
all the right mechanisms for expanding it, etc. The granularity is
perhaps too coarse, but it's there...

Dan