[FRIAM] Google and Semantics

[Marcus G. Daniels]

George Duncan wrote:
> Not bad at a "meaning" level, I think. Also useful for the searcher. 
> Clusty is a Carnegie Mellon spinoff from CS. A lot of the research 
> on information retrieval done here works with rather simple 
> (conceptually at least) statistical models. Here's a link with a broad 
> overview: http://www.lti.cscmu.edu/Research/index.html 
> <http://www.lti.cs.cmu.edu/Research/index.html>
Thanks for the link -- looks like their machine translation and 
information retrieval projects follow both statistical and grammatical 
approaches.    For web search engines, at least for casual users, I 
think its pretty clear that stateless clustering approaches can work 
well.   My interest is whether, using automated procedures, scientific 
terms can be determined to have consistent meanings or not.    If it 
didn't matter what order words and sentences had, words' part-of-speech, 
etc.  then we ought to be able to scramble any text and still understand 
it.   (How basic statistical retrieval systems work.)