Ontology Is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags (2005)

Re:Ontology Is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags (2005) by ChuckMcM on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @08:19PM (#18974774)

I agree with this too, and certainly articles about different topics will have high contrast and low correlation. IBM patented[1] some work we did at Blekko to figure out the topic of a document from its components and that is an essential first step.

It also fails when there are few streams to compare, as when a new story first breaks. Or when there is coordination of actors.

My suggestion is not that it is fail safe or perfect, only that is a useful application of an ontology which disputes the original author's thesis that they are overrated.

[1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US10157178B2/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ontology Is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags (2005) by whatshisface on Tuesday January 22, 2019 @08:29PM (#18974845)

>It also fails when there are few streams to compare, as when a new story first breaks. Or when there is coordination of actors.

All of these things are hallmarks of fake news: it is claimed to be new (hence "news",) is not published very widely (you can't compare a aquariusrising.biz article on Green Space Aliens to a CNN article on the same, because there isn't a CNN article on that), and it's usually coordinated between copycat opportunists. Even worse, none of these things are distinguishable from a grassroots report unless you know the true news a-priori. This better not be a mechanism to ban everything that isn't on CNN.com.

[ Parent | on HN ]