| Question asked
|
At the end of section 3.1, I(ps) is define … At the end of section 3.1, I(ps) is defined as the sum of the specificity and the theta-specificity of path ps. This definition equally weights the two specificities; do you think this is fair? Also, at the end of section 3.4, SEMRANK(SA) is defined as equally weighted product of the information gained, the refractions (plus one), and the semantic match of keywords (plus one). Do you think equal weighting is fair? For example, maybe the semantic match of keywords deserves a heavier weight because it is affected by the user and perhaps therefore could be considered a better indicator of what would be an appropriate rank for the user. What do you think? ate rank for the user. What do you think?
|
