Definition of "facet"

In message <AAEKLFPLCPPCFCOACDKIEEIECJAA.aida@acorweb.net> on Thu, 26
Feb 2004, Aida Slavic <aida@acorweb.net> wrote
> 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

I would describe this as the organisation of concepts within the
materials facet into arrays, each according to a specified criterion of
division. A concept may occur in two or more of these arrays and may
occur more than once within a single array.

For example you can have:

<materials by origin>
        animal materials
                animal fat
        inorganic materials
                mineral oil
        vegetable materials
                sunflower oil

<materials by function>
        foodstuffs
                animal fat
                sunflower oil
        fuels
                animal fat
                mineral oil
                sunflower oil
        lubricants
                animal fat
                mineral oil

>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 don't really follow this. You could argue that "materials" is one of
the mutually-exclusive groups you would create if you divided the
universe of concepts by the criterion of the "fundamental category" to
which they belong. Alternatively, you could argue that "materials" is a
top-level term which you would reach if you built a hierarchical tree
from the bottom upwards, and could then go no further, i.e. it is one of
the small number of ultimate "top terms" that you would reach if you
combined all concepts into trees on the "is-a" (generic) relationship.

Both of these approaches lead me to think that it is useful to use the
expression "facets" for these groups or ultimate top terms.

I agree that different people may derive slightly different sets of
facets by these methods. "People" and "organisations" might be
considered as separate facets or as concepts within a more general facet
of "people and organisations"[1]; "people" might be considered as a
concept within the more general facet of "organisms". But in most cases
I think it is possible to define a useful set of mutually exclusive
facets in this way.

>>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

But I'm not sure what you are saying that it "logically and technically"
is. Do you want to use the term "facet" for what I have called an
"array"?

> - 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']

These concept categories are what my reasoning above leads me to call
"fundamental facets", or preferably just "facets", to avoid the
complication and confusion of having different kinds of facets.

>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.

Yes, and I think we have to come to some clear consensus or we shall
continue to confuse the folk who are seeking definitive statements on
these structures in order to build them into the unforgiving syntax of
machine communication formats.

Leonard

[1] It is unfortunate that we don't have a convenient word to encompass
"people and organisations". "Agents" is not good, because it implies an
active role and distinguishes them from "patients", i.e. the things
acted upon, which is not intended here. "Bodies" implies dead bodies or
corporate bodies.
-- 
Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
L.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk               Sheena.Will@Willpowerinfo.co.uk
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 11:40:49 UTC