RE: Special vs general schemes

Claudio,

> 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.

This is where story about wine bottles and faceted classification
based on general categories starts to show its real scope.

While you CAN use fc based on conceptual/general categories to create
facets for wine bottles. You CAN't use wine bottle facets
anywhere else but for wine bottles.

And this is why some of us on this list mentioned that there is need
to think about the possibility of building on conceptual facet
categories if the goal is knowledge presentation, ontology etc.
This is the point where the difference between understanding
of facet analysis scope comes into focus.
>
> How could we describe the differences between requirements
> of special vs general faceted schemas?

Depends for what.
Generally applicable conceptual facets are universally applicable -
it's a framework you can use to create different vocabularies.
But they are not vocabularies themselves. So this is what theory
of facet classification as knowledge organization tools is about.

But facet system for wine or beer bottles can perfectly work with
rules of its own as far as there is no cross-classification between
categories. If you will never need your vocabulary for
anything else but for wine then you are fine.
If you are merging your wine bottles portal with portal of dairy
products
and textual resources on enology topics and dietary issues you
may wish to have more general umbrella..

this is my understanding anyway

Aida Slavic



----------
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/