Re: Re: Defining basic vocabulary of faceted classification (TERMINOLOGY)

I think you have to make a distinction between what are facets within 
classification, and what are metadata attached to an item.

You have external metadata about an item, like price, or when it goes 
obsolete, or who is responsible for the content in it. Those would work for 
a book.

You also have the internal formatting-based metadata inside the book, font 
size, heading style, etc. Then you have metadata concerning the subject. 
Where do you draw the line and say what the facets are? Which are facets, 
and which are simply metadata? Should all metadata be included in the 
faceted classification? I don't think so, but where to draw the line is 
fuzzy -- I think it is audience-bound. And each audience wants something 
different. Building facets about books for a librarian audience is 
different than for a general library-user audience. Facets for typesetters 
would be an intriguing third point of view.

jan

At 04:25 PM 1/5/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>At 08:38 AM 1/5/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> >At 12:35 AM 1/5/2003 +0000, you wrote:
> > >Many facets don't have anything to do
> > >with the subject matter (e.g. date, author, color, popularity, etc.).
> >
> >Just curious here. Are not object such as date, author, etc, attributes of
> >the subject matter?
>
>I guess it depends on your definitions -- they're certainly attributes of
>the resource's content, yes. But a subject usually reflects what an article
>is about. Remember that libraries index books by title, author ... *and*
>subject.
>
>For example, the number one book on Amazon right now is "8 Minutes in the
>Morning". The Subject of that book is "fitness" or "losing weight". That's
>an important facet. But there are other values in other facets, like Price
>($10.47), rating (4.5 stars), edition (hardcover only), and so on. These
>are attributes of the book itself, but not of the book's subject. They are
>other headings under which you could file "8 Minutes in the Morning".
>
>A better example would be a piece of furniture, like a chair at a chair
>store. It has facets, certainly, like size, softness, price, and whether it
>has a refrigerator in its arm. But what's the subject matter of the chair?
>At this point, it seems awkward to classify the chair with things called
>"subjects".
>
>That's kinda what I was getting at. I think a lot of people will use
>"subject" or its synonyms as the name of a facet, and we might not want to
>reserve it to mean "one possible value in any facet".
>
>trav
>
>Travis Wilson
>Development
>http://facetmap.com
>
>
>----------
>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/


----------
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/