# Topical scope

The first constraint we can apply to the set of keywords we will allow in our vocabulary is to define a DOMAIN OF DISCOURSE - the subject area within which each and every user of our search engine is assumed to be searching. While we might imagine building a truly encyclopedic reference work, one capable of answering questions about any topic whatsoever, it is much more common to build a search engine with more limited goals, capable of answering questions about some particular subject. We will choose the simpler path (it will prove enough of a challenge!), and focus on a particular topic. To be concrete, throughout this text we will assume that the domain of discourse is {\tt ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE} (AI). Briefly, AI can be defined as a sub-discipline of computer science, especially concerned with algorithms that mimic inferences which, had they been made by a human, would be considered intelligent.'' It typically includes such topics as {\tt KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION, MACHINE LEARNING, ROBOTICS}, etc.

Thus is a BROADER TERM than \term{ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE}. This HYPERNYM relationship between the two phrases is something we will return to later (cf. Section §6.3 ). For example, our task becomes more difficult if we assume that the corpus of documents contains materials on the broader topic of \term{COMPUTER SCIENCE}, rather than just (!) \term{ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE}. Conversely, the topics \term{KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION}, \term{MACHINE LEARNING}, \term{ROBOTICS} are all NARROWER TERMS , and our task would, {\em caeteris paribus\/}\footnote{(Assuming) all other things being equal.}, be made easier if we only had to help users FOA one of them.

Constraining the vocabulary so that it is EXHAUSTIVE enough that any imaginable topic is expressible within the language, while remaining SPECIFIC enough that any particular subjects a user is likely to investigate can be distinguished from others, will become a central goal of our design. \term{ROBOTICS}, for example, would seem a descriptive keyword because it identifies a relatively small sub-area of \term{ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE}. \term{COMPUTER SCIENCE} would be silly as a keyword (for this corpus), as we are assuming it would apply to each and every document and hence does nothing to discriminate them - it is too exhaustive. At the other extreme, \term{ROBOTIC VACUUM CLEANERS FOR 747 AIRLINERS} is almost certainly too specific.

The VOCABULARY SIZE -- the total number of keywords -- depends on many factors, including the scope of the domain of discourse. A typical language user has a reading vocabulary of approximately 50,000 words. Web search engines and large test corpora formed from the union of many document types may require vocabularies ten times this large. It is unlikely that such a large lexicon of keywords is required for restricted corpora, but it is also true that even a narrow field can develop an extensive, specialized JARGON or TERMS OF ART. In practice, search engines typically have difficulty reducing the number of usable keywords much below 10,000.

FOA © R. K. Belew - 00-09-21