[MG] Summary parsing (was Re: Visualization problems for crossforum theatre)

[conseo]

Hi,

> Thomas von der Elbe wrote:
> > Conseo or Mike, can you please briefly explain what information
> > exactly the difference feed shows! Something like: user X compared
> > position a and position b of poll p at time t?
> 
> That's pretty much it.  Except it's always tied to a particular
> discussion post in which a difference is being discussed.  Last Conseo
> and I spoke, I think we agreed that each bite of the diff feed will
> contain:
> 
>  a) Post URL, e.g.:
> 
>    
> http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/2010-Septembe
> r/003091.html
> 
>  b) Short tweet-like summary of the post
> 
>     Hey Thomas, (sorry for the delay) | I made the terminology changes
>     ("namegiver", "donation") that we agreed to previously.

I'd like to have some feedback about how this should be done, because it is 
not easy to parse a summary out of an E-Mail. Atm. I search the position of 
any diffUrl and grep a text string of ~300 characters around of it. I have 
approached it that way, because it is likely to get some relevant information 
around the oocurance of the diff url. On the other hand it might be very 
specific text in the middle of an argument, which cannot be understood easily. 
I could also parse let's say ~3 sentences one before, the one with the url and 
one after.
Using the approach proposed by Michael would mean that we simply grep the first 
not-quoted paragraph. It is difficult to see if there is relevant data in it. If 
we do language and term checks, we have to do it for every language. 
It might also be specific to the way the involved parties communicate, e.g. if 
they usually try to advertise them and their party first. They might even try 
to get better coverage in Crossforum (which is not such a big problem atm. 
though).
Another problem is that the first paragraph might be specific to one of diff- 
urls, while you can and likely will discuss several differences in one Mail to 
give a picture of your point of view. If we use some generic summary it will 
be the same for every diff url occuring, even if they cover different parts of 
the argument and the summary only covers the first diff url.

We could leave it to the writer to tag it with <summary url="...">Some 
summary, ....</summary>, but any formatting is likely to be discarded by 
users.

What should I do? 

> 
>  c) Difference URL
> 
>     http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Diff?b=3860&a=3891
> 
>  d) URLs of the two texts:
> 
>     http://u.zelea.com/w/User:Mike-ZeleaCom/G/p/owdo?oldid=3891
>     http://u.zelea.com/w/User:ThomasvonderElbe%20GmxDe/G/p/owdo?oldid=3860
> 
>  e) Poll ID
> 
>     G/p/owdo
> 
> Much else can be derived from this, of course, including the geolocals
> that we'll need for the geomap.  So there can be lots more info on the
> theatre screen, depending on what map view the user has dialed up.

Christian



Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org