>> There is a general consensus that these two are fine examples of FC.
>> 
>> [http://www.wine.com/]

>>
[http://eat.epicurious.com/recipes/browse_home/index.ssf/?/recipes/browse_ho
>> me/index.html]

> These are examples, but not ones I would consider fine. 

Excellent! I actually posed a question along that line when I first drafted
my previous email. And in my blissful ignorance, assumed that they were
regarded as fine examples but had reservations as I stated with epicurioius.
So, what are these sites lacking? Incomplete or improper facet analysis
resulting in a less than desirable classification? epicurious, yes, you and
I agree. How about wine.com?

> Let's tackle access by the ingredient facet first. 

> How best to approach this? 

> I'd propose: 

> Meat
> Dairy
> Vegetable

> I'd be interested in hearing from others about how to approach facet
> analysis, especially worked examples, or examples of sites which
> demonstrate elegant use of facets. (I'll try to access my list and get it
> here soon). We can go further with this list too.

What methodology did you use to define these isolates? To me, they make
sense...they feel right. Unfortunately, that doesn't agree with the folks
who ultimately sign off on it.

In Ranganathan's scheme of classification, he suggests that there are five
fundamental categories: personality (distinguishing characteristic), matter
(physical material), energy (action), space (location), time (time period).

Now one question I've always had is whether one should look at these
categories and find the facets that naturally make sense within them. Or is
it a mistake? Should one do the analysis without Ranganathan's scheme and in
the end discover that yes, the facets we end up defining organically fit his
fundamentals?

To me, doing it without Ranganathan's scheme makes sense...giving the
analysis the most unbiased view possible. However, would I be missing out on
a valuable tool?

Cory

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
facetedclassification-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/