In case you haven’t been following it, Xyggy representative Dinesh Vadhia and I have been continuing a very open and interesting conversation about the intricacies of Xyggy Patent search (and Xyggy in general) in my previous post about Xyggy. The comments on this post deserve your attention because they go above and beyond the scope of the original viewpoint–an example that shows how great the Intellogist community is!
Among the interesting points of exchange:
Chris Jagalla:1. How are “features” defined? It seems to me that they are automatically generated by comparing two examples (finding common keywords or phrases, in text documents)…
Dinesh Vadhia1. Feature engineering
The feature vector (schema) of an item type is defined beforehand during the data processing phase and before creating the search indexes. There can definitely be poorly designed feature vectors, but it is mostly a matter of common sense…
Dinesh has written a very informative and interesting article about the method behind “item search” over at The Noisy Channel if you wish to dig into the nitty gritty of Xyggy.
Feel free to dive into in the comments section if you have anything to say about Xyggy!
This post was contributed by Intellogist team member Chris Jagalla.
Filed under: Items of Interest, Patent Search News Tagged: | Item Search, Xyggy, Xyggy Patent
[...] Blog we’ve looked at new search technology this year including Xyggy (also see this follow-up) and IBM’s Watson (which is set to play Jeopardy next [...]
[...] Revisiting Xyggy « The Intellogist Blog, on April 6, 2010 at 5:17 pm said: [...]