<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Semantic Search: The Myth and Reality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.altsearchengines.com/2008/05/29/semantic-search-the-myth-and-reality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.altsearchengines.com/2008/05/29/semantic-search-the-myth-and-reality/</link>
	<description>The most wonderful search engines you've never seen!</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.altsearchengines.com/2008/05/29/semantic-search-the-myth-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-65753</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:49:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://altsearchengines.com/2008/05/29/semantic-search-the-myth-and-reality/#comment-65753</guid>
		<description>Excellent article,

The comprehensive review of the main players in this field was very enlightening. I think that semantics is being correctly recognized as the natural evolution of search technology. However I don't agree with the statement that a more complex interface must be applied in order to take advantage of the semantic capabilities. It must be kept simple but at the same time more interactive. For instance, when a person enters a query that can be interpreted in more than one way, he must be presented with all the possible meanings so that he could specify what he is looking for. However, beside semantics, other advances are needed before Google's dominance could be undermined, like a more precise quality evaluation mechanism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent article,</p>
<p>The comprehensive review of the main players in this field was very enlightening. I think that semantics is being correctly recognized as the natural evolution of search technology. However I don&#8217;t agree with the statement that a more complex interface must be applied in order to take advantage of the semantic capabilities. It must be kept simple but at the same time more interactive. For instance, when a person enters a query that can be interpreted in more than one way, he must be presented with all the possible meanings so that he could specify what he is looking for. However, beside semantics, other advances are needed before Google&#8217;s dominance could be undermined, like a more precise quality evaluation mechanism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dmitri</title>
		<link>http://www.altsearchengines.com/2008/05/29/semantic-search-the-myth-and-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-65253</link>
		<dc:creator>Dmitri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 14:13:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://altsearchengines.com/2008/05/29/semantic-search-the-myth-and-reality/#comment-65253</guid>
		<description>Excellent article and quite an intriguing view of the semantic search field. Suggestion to separate simple queries from semantic ones on the UI level sounds reasonable, although my guess would be that the vast majority of users would flock back to the simple search, daunted by the perceived complexity of semantics. But don't you think that Google may be working under the covers to add more semantics to their search (they have a database on the backend after all, so it's a matter of applying more of semantic rules to it)? In this case, the distinction between the simple search box approach and complex semantic system may get blurred.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent article and quite an intriguing view of the semantic search field. Suggestion to separate simple queries from semantic ones on the UI level sounds reasonable, although my guess would be that the vast majority of users would flock back to the simple search, daunted by the perceived complexity of semantics. But don&#8217;t you think that Google may be working under the covers to add more semantics to their search (they have a database on the backend after all, so it&#8217;s a matter of applying more of semantic rules to it)? In this case, the distinction between the simple search box approach and complex semantic system may get blurred.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
