Now that many of us have returned from holiday respites, extended families,
and those wonderful holiday meals, I'd like to suggest that we gradually (oh
so gradually) re-immerse ourselves in faceted classification by defining
some of the basic terminology used in discussions of faceted classification
(FC).

Kathryn La Barre gave us a good definition of "facet analysis." (See her
posting of 18-dec-2002, "[facetedclassification] Poor FC example?" and
others.)

The article Kathryn cited earlier (Broughton, Vanda. "Facet analytical
theory" [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/fatks/fat.htm]) introduces additional
terminology:

"Although the faceted classification is regarded by many as a structure with
specific characteristics, essentially facet analysis is a technique, and
different models of the same universe of discourse can be derived to meet
different local or subject-specific needs using different categories and
variations on the syntax."

Does "syntax" refer to how terms from different facets are combined? Or does
it imply more than that? I have a particular interest in how terms from
different facets can be combined in the syntax of a term (or query) -- for
example "Microsoft (subject or agent) develops (action) software (object)
for experts (audience/indirect object) interested in XML (application)."

Also, from Broughton's article and Kathryn's posts:

* "compound and complex subjects" (Broughton)

* "combinatorial methods" (Broughton)

* "protofacets" (See Kathryn La Barre's posting of  18-dec-2002,
"[facetedclassification] Introducing myself".)

* "isolates" (Cory Preus posting of 18-dec-2002, "[facetedclassification]
analysis methodology")

And, in general, is there consistent terminology for elements within a
facet -- "terms" (as frequently used in the language of thesaurus
construction) vs. "concepts" or "subjects"?

The experts among us may find the need for such definitions a bit too basic,
but it might be helpful if we had some explicit agreement on basic
terminology. And some uses of the terminology of FC (for example, in
discussions of the Topic Map standard) seem inconsistent with my own
understanding of FC.

The correlation between "classic" FC terminology and concepts used in
construction of formal ontologies, back-of-the-book indexes, and other
methods of knowledge organization is also of great interest to me.

And Happy New Year!

    Phil

P.S. I'm going to adopt David Austen's suggestion of using a category label
in the subject line. Suggestions for other conventions are welcome.

-------------------------------------------
"I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have
not had the time to make it shorter."
-- Blaise Pascal, Lettres Provinciales, 1657

Phil Murray -- Chief Knowledge Architect
The Knowledge Management Connection | http://www.KMconnection.com
Home of the KMconnection Knowledge Management Product Guide
401-247-7899

----------
Thanks for playing. 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/