Am Mittwoch, 31. März 2010 18:14:40 schrieb Sean Owen: Hello,
> > I'll try to implement this. > > What i would do is: > > Look at lines 116-123 of GenericRecommenderIRStatsEvaluator. Just > stick in logic to fill in 'relevantItemIDs' in whatever way you want. > Here, you'd pick IDs of items whose preference was set after some > date. The rest should still work out. actually thats what i did. Changed some other stuff, too although. > > Well if you take the items as web pages it makes more sense, > > doesn't it? > > Hard to say. I imagine your set of user-to-webpage associations is > relatively dense, that you know about most meaningful connections of > this type. If that's true, then I think the test is more meaningful. > For more sparse data, I think it falls down more. > > > I could think of a few cases where evaluating a boolean recommender > > with two time separated dataModels makes sense. > > To generalize this... I guess we could add some kind of > "RelevantItemChooser" interface to let a caller stick in some notion > of relevance. It could be implemented to choose based on date or > whatever. Would that work for your case. Don't implement anything yet, i'm trying to find out if time data helps at all, currently you can add a double rating to a Preference, but no time value. I've implemented some new TimePreference and i'll make some experiments with that. I'll keep you up-to-date whenever i have something ready. Maybe in the future one could implement the Preference interface without a value and then have a RatedPreference, and a TimePreference etc. regards Christoph -- Christoph Hermann Institut für Informatik Tel: +49 761-203-8171 Fax: +49 761-203-8162 e-mail: [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
