Open MRuecklCC opened 2 years ago
It would also be good to know, why the cclom:general_description
field is a list typed attribute, and not a simple string type.
A couple of ideas for validating that a provided text may actually be a viable description:
These could be validated whenever a request is received to increase likelihood that the generated keywords, title, or classification actually make sense. which long term could indirectly improve the quality of the description fields of already indexed content - i.e. these constraints could be "propagated upstream" into the WLO metadata profile.
As can be seen from #131 today's state of the art NLP models are quite capable of generating adequate titles from reasonable inputs.
The key point - which got me tripping - here is, that the created description is a suggestion to the editors, so no need to consider their freetext descriptions.
See also #146
One feature that is requested from the users is the possibility to e.g. generate keywords, a title, or the assignment to the different SKOs vocabularies from a provided description (
cclom:general_descriotion
) of the content.No matter the chosen approach, two problems need to be addressed to implement that.
The description needs to be made available to the service
To extract keywords from a description, the service first needs the description. Two options would be:
I think approach a) or c) are the viable options:
One downside of option c) is we might redo work that was already done when the content was crawled initially.
The quality of the description is often insufficient
cclom:general_description
at all or just contains an empty string....
Examples:
problematic formatting / incomplete sentences
mixed with html / script blocks
obvious junk content
mix of actual content and link list
Unsere Partnerportale finde Sie unter: https://wirlernenonline.de/portal/zukunfts-und-berufsorientierung/ https://wirlernenonline.de/portal/lernen-lernen/ """ ]