Re: joint occurrences?

> Say I was to build a facet map for a TV soap opera. Of course there
> would be facets for season/episode, characters, actors, story lines,
> etc.

I'm not sure you've got a good set of facets. I use the term facet
to mean a fundamental, top-level, category. Sub-facets are further
level of subdivisions (I think you called them topics and
sub-topics).

You say both characters and actors would be facets. But hese are
both types of people. Your facet would be people, with characters
and actors as sub-facets. Furthermore, actors are one of several
roles used to create a film (actors, directors, writers...though
your users may only care about actors), and you may be interested in
specific characters or types of characters.

So just the people facet might look like this:
 
 PEOPLE
    <by role>
       <by director>
           Von Espy, Kraus
           Kubrick, Stanley           
       <by actor/actress>
           Nicholson, Jack
           Crothers, Scatman
           Scott, George C.           
       <by writer>       
           Crothers, Scatman
    <by character>
       <by character name>
           Jack Torrance       
           Evil Bob
           Hunky Father
           Biff his Brother
       <by character type>
           deranged father
           protective mother
           
           
Each level of subdivision is mutually exclusive from the other.
Characters and roles are mutually exclusive. Each of the roles are
distinct. Yes, a person may be both a director and a writer, but
these are separate roles and the writer/director situation is an
example of polyhierarchy. 
           
The thing about facets that I always have to remind myself about is
that I am not organizing the things in my collection; I am
organizing *concepts* which represent those things.

> a comprehensive classification of all episodes wherein various
> characters appeared in various states of undress ... hunky lead with
> shirt off, evil nemesis flexing his biceps, etc. Complete with
> associated references such as "in chains", "leather pants", "slinky
> nightwear".

Clothing would be a completely separate facet. Clothing is mutually
exclusive from people, hence a separate facet. The latter examples
in your post confused me since they seeme to mix them together.

Actually, clothing is a type of object so depending on what else you
have, clothing is more likely to be a sub-facet under an OBJECTS
facet.

Also, there is a subtle difference between "states of undress" and
"clothing." I'm not sure how to handle that. My gut feeling is that
users won't understand the subtlety and you should just make a
clothing facet. 

Hope this helps...
         
                     

--karl

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xlw.sC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/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/