Viewpoint (FC and METADATA) Was: Defining basic vocabulary of faceted classification (TERMINOLOGY)

Jan C. Wright poses the question: "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."

This is an important issue, and it is related to the scope of this list. My
viewpoint:

1. Faceted classification seems uniquely useful for describing the content
(subject matter) of "documents" (instances of information, whether they be
books, emails, images, or multimedia presentations).

2. Metadata can be divided into at least three categories:

(a) Persistent, inherent properties of documents: title, authorship, date of
publication, unique identity (ISBN, email ID, URL), etc.

(b) Semantic metadata (as in point 1, above) -- including many-to-many
relationships between terms in a classification schema and documents. Dates,
ranges of dates? (periods, eras), may take on semantic significance where
they are properties of the content (subject matter) -- for example, the
Middle Ages or even a specific day (the death of President Kennedy, for
example).

Especially in electronic environments, the terms associated with a document
are subject to change. The number of terms applied may be open-ended,
because there may be many audiences.

(c) "Living" documents might also have what I think of as "adminstrative
metadata": when last edited, editorial status, security level, revision
level, document encoding format, etc. This information is often embedded in
the documents.


Paper-based library catalogues use both (a) and (b). Document management
systems might use all three kinds of metadata.

My interested in faceted classification is limited to (b).

    Phil


----------
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/