Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3310Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

Expand Messages
  • John O'Gorman
    Nov 3, 2009
      Leonard, you raise some of the issues that I believe have been resolved with the development of Q6. BTW, I'm being deliberately provocative here to elicit these kinds of comments and I really appreciate the dialog.
      Q6 insists on a fixed set of facets for a number of reasons, the primary one so that non-taxonomists cannot begin to develop their own. Think of it like rules of the game...chess for example has a definitive set of rules, otherwise it wouldn't be a game.  The secondary reason is to force an alternative method for managing the 'characteristics of division' Leonard mentions below.
      First of all, a unique value can only appear once and only on one facet. That means that Matt Moore, Leonard Will, Heather Heddon,  Stavros Macrakis, Patrick Lambe and John O'Gorman are data points on the Person facet. If another Leonard Will comes along and is proven to be different than the current version, he will be added as a unique (in the sense of identitiy) value on the Person facet.
      The same process is repeated for all facets, so the words 'Customer', 'Client', 'Supplier', 'Curmudgeon', 'Analyst' and 'Patient' would be added to the 'Role' facet. This is initially one of the more difficult concepts to grasp, because most data modellers would put these on the 'Person' facet. Putting them on a separate facet, though, makes them much more useful. Now, anyone on the Person facet can have multiple Roles simply by allowing a one-to-many relationship between Person and Role.  You don't have duplicate people in different roles which makes things much, much easier to manage. I'm compacting concepts here, but hopefully you get the jist.
      The reason I believe this model will be of interest to the taxonomy community is because it gives us a whole new tool set for not only classifying data and by extension content, but for actively promoting initiatives like The Semantic Web and Master Data Management to name only two. The traditional method of assigning one entity to one place in a taxonomy is still valid and useful. However, when organizing very large - and potentially volatile - collections, the Q6 method assigns all of the names, terms, strings and values to common facets, then uses fairly rigid rules for combining the values into 'new' entities. In other words, it provides a very stable framework for managing what is currently a very chaotic universe of information.
      One final point if I may. Point #3 in your post points to an interesting dillema in the classification process: what to 'name' things and when to expose the names.  I used 'Agent' as a primary facet name, but I have never exposed it my clients and for the same reason that both Leonard and Matt have mentioned. I don't sweat it any more, though - I just use whatever label they are comfortable with...developers use this technique all the time.
      John O'
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 04:00 AM
      To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations


      On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 16:23:51, Matt Moore <innotecture@ yahoo.com> wrote
      >What would appear on your list?

      I don't think that it is possible to have a "definitive" list that suits
      all circumstances. The references Patrick Lambe has given discuss the

      Two issues are sometimes confused when discussing facets:

      1. The need to distinguish between

      * "facets" (sometimes called "fundamental facets"), which are the
      mutually exclusive categories we are talking about here, such as
      objects, materials, activities, places, abstract concepts, and so on,


      * "characteristics of division", such as "colour" or "age" which are
      used to subdivide a facet into _arrays_, headed by a "node label" such
      as "automobiles by colour" or "people by age"; these would be part of
      the "objects" or "people" facets respectively.

      2. The fact that in specifying a citation order of facets in a compound
      subject you may have to list a single facet more than once, depending on
      its role. For example, in the CRG / BC2 list quoted in William Denton's

      * thing/entity
      * kind
      * part
      * property
      * material
      * process
      * operation
      * patient
      * product
      * by-product
      * agent
      * space
      * time

      terms from the "people" facet may be used as both "patient" and "agent",
      and terms from the "object" facet may be used as "thing", "product",
      "by-product" , and so on. This makes is difficult to specify a consistent
      combination order which can be mechanised based solely on the names of
      facets - the entries in the above list are not really names of facets in
      the sense defined in 1 above..

      This issue is not so much of a problem in post-coordinate applications,
      but as this list is talking about "taxonomies" (i.e. classification
      schemes), rather than thesauri, I presume that some pre-coordination
      will often be required.

      3. It is difficult to find a term to name a facet to which people and
      organisations both belong: "agent" can give the misleading impression
      that it needs to be the pro-active member in a process; "actor" is
      liable to misinterpretation. Has anyone found a good term for this?


      Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
      Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
      27 Calshot Way L.Will@Willpowerinf o.co.uk
      ENFIELD Sheena.Will@ Willpowerinfo. co.uk
      EN2 7BQ, UK http://www.willpowe rinfo.co. uk/

    • Show all 22 messages in this topic