RE: Recommended reading: feedback on SKOS from Doug Tudhope and Ceri Binding from University of Glamorgan

Leonard,

> I think it is better not to use the expressions "broad facets" or
> "subfacets", because this implies that these are kinds of facets. This
> is not accurate because they do not share all the characteristics of
> facets, in particular mutual exclusivity. I therefore prefer to use the
> expressions "subject areas" (or "subject  categories" or "subject
> classes") and "arrays".

I agree. And I don't think this complication is helpful.
I only tried to interpret the way Jack
Mills and Vanda Broughton seems to be operating with this terms
in BC2 (13 fundamental facets on which they base citation order).
And I got impression that Doug and Ceri were referring to this.
I also spoke to Vanda about this recently and she confirmed
that there is no agreement on this. They use their structure as
this help them doing their job.

For the rest of the world the definition of facet is best when pinned on the
level where it is functional and acceptable for everyone:
i.e. on the level of mutually exclusive classes, where the facet
is defined as the result of a division by a single criterion.

> >Some facets commonly used in  thesauri include Activities, Agents,
> >Objects, Materials,  Organisms, Places, Times. Normally, a concept that
> >belongs to  one of these facets cannot belong to any of the others,
> >because they are such fundamentally different things.

As you say the problem is not on here but on the level when we have
subdivision of e.g.  so-called-facet Materials ...

materials by origin
	Origin1
	Origin2
	Origin3

materials by function
	Function1
	Function2
	Function3

RESULT: in this arrangement one can make logical combination:
Origin1Function2
If 'MATERIAL' contains further mutually exclusive division
(by origin, by function etc.) it seems not to be technically a facet itself.
If Material would be a 'facet' in the pure sense (i.e. production of
division by a single
criterion) combination of concepts within it would not make logical sense as
they
would be mutually exclusive.

>I wonder, therefore, whether we should avoid using the term "facets" for
>the 13 elements in the list above, and say just that this specifies a
>useful citation order of concepts according to their roles.

By all means!!!
The best way would be IMHO to let facet be what it logically and
technically is - and then find a proper name for concept categories above it
such as Activities, Agents, Objects, Materials,  Organisms, Places, Times
['concept categories' or 'fundamental concept categories']


> It is very difficult to decide which definition should claim the right
> to the term "facet", but I think it is important to pin it down to a
> single meaning, as I'm sure that its varied and loose use in the past
> has contributed to a lot of confusion and lack of clarity in
> communication.

Agreed. This discussion repeats every now and then on several lists.
Last time it was on facetedclassification list when people were confused
with definition of 'fundamental' facets and whether they are facets at all
with respect to what facet should technically be and how it should be
represented
with an ontology mark-up language.


Aida

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 08:40:01 UTC