Re: Special vs general schemes
Travis Wilson <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.infodesign.facetedclassification |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
To take Phil's words to more of an extreme -- Can there even be such a thing as a general faceted schema? Facets only seem to make sense within a context. Not that you couldn't have facets for very large collections of things -- e.g. "computer files" all have headings in "creation date" and "last-altered date" facets, but there's still some context there that would render those facets meaningless if they were applied generally. As for Ranganathan's five-objective-facet approach, I hope we can just regard that as early work and move on. Travis Wilson Development http://facetmap.com At 05:29 PM 3/11/2003 +0100, you wrote: >/ Claudio Gnoli --> "Faceted classification discussion" > >""" [Phil Murray: 19 Feb] >In general, the immediate needs of members of an organization >may be so fundamentally different from the needs of the public >from a general collection that it is unfair to expect all canonical >principles of the faceted approach to classification to apply >within organizations. >""" > >Well, I suppose that what can change is the choice of which >facets are the most useful ones for the organization on hand. >However, the basic principles of FC were intended by CRG >members as a guide to develop even _special_ classifications >and thesauri, and were applied in such a way around the 60s >to build many schemes. > >How could we describe the differences between requirements >of special vs general faceted schemas? ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 250 Free Business Cards - $85 Value http://us.click.yahoo.com/ig9A1A/xbqFAA/yPdLAA/0bmwlB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ---------- Thanks for playing. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/