RE: Special vs general schemes

Greetings,
I would like to see if I'm understanding facets correctly. My 
understanding is that facets involve a classification based on one 
meaning of a term.  This is why Aida says that a wine classification 
- using the term "balance", meaning "symmetrical and tending to age 
gracefully" - can't be used elsewhere.  On the other hand, some 
meanings are broad, and suitable to act as "taxonomies".  The term 
"ontology" seems to be used these days to cover classifications based 
on taxonomic principles.    I have an index (in the Wordsyth 
Children's Dictionary - at http://www.wordsmyth.net) that has a "Word 
Explorer" index for 180 terms, built on only one meaning of these 
terms.  Would it be fair to say these index entries are facets???

Thanks,
Bob

>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/


-- 

* Robert Parks - mailto:[email protected] - Wordsmyth 
Collaboratory - (607) 272-2190
* The best dictionary and integrated thesaurus on the web
can be bookmarked at http://www.wordsmyth.net
* "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
* "Philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point, however, 
is to change it."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


----------
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/