Les,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Les Carr [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Subject: Re: subject classification
>
> We are not talking about laundry lists though. In the context of
> research outputs in a repository, I think we have a right to
> assume
> that normal editorial standards would insist that the content of a
> paper is comprehensible, and that if the sum total of all the
> words in
> the paper don't represent what the paper was about then there
> would
> have been a violation of the usual rules of writing.
You are therefore limiting yourself to a predefined set of documents and I fear you are in danger of slipping into a circular argument which is:
'My algorithms can clearly analyse a defined set of documents (which don't include laundry lists), and the members of that set are defined as being those documents my algorithms can clearly analyse.'
This may appear an extreme interpretation but if you exclude certain documents that don't fit your criteria and tighten your criteria every time you find a document that fits but you can't analyze it this is where you end up.
Regards,
John Smith.
|