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

4637Re: [TaxoCoP] Tagging to levels

Expand Messages
  • James Morris
    Oct 19, 2013
      Hi all
      Some systems (well, at least one with which I have direct experience) added to the content not only the specific subject term identified by the indexer, but also, into a different field, all the parents of that term up to the top facet.   That way a user could search for the specific term (or synonym) for a precise result. Or if they entered any term in the tree above the specific term they would  still retrieve any content tagged with the lower-level term.  It seemed like an clever way to put all the intelligence of the taxonomy into the content itself.  The search engine itself can remain fairly stupid - no complex taxonomy integration needed.   don't know how wide-spread that practice is - for that I'll defer to the knowledge of this group.  But maybe it's something you database designer could consider.

      So, given the taxonomy:
      => ANIMALS
      => CAT

      The content metadata would include:
      Title: The Cat
      Subject: "CAT"

      For a precise search, a pro-searcher could specifically look for subject="cat".  Also, the subject would be weighted more highly in the search results to assist the general users.  But if a user was looking for any information about "animals", they would also retrieve books tagged with "CAT". 

      Jim Morris
      p.s. - love the 137 year old Cutter reference! 

      On Oct 17, 2013, at 10:12 PM, marijane white <marijane@...> wrote:

      I don't think you're missing anything.  You've got the principle of specificity on your side and IMO it is up to the database designer to defend their position.  Why do they think that?  Do they have any evidence that it's a best practice in use anywhere?

      I found a nice quote about specificity at http://www.iva.dk/bh/lifeboat_ko/concepts/specificity.htm:
      "The principle of specificity in indexing is in particular associated with Charles A. Cutter's Rules for a Printed Dictionary Catalog (1876) and probably no other principle for indexing or classification has the same amount of acceptance and propagation. Cutter wrote: "Enter a work under its subject-heading, not under the heading of a class which includes that subject. EX. Put Lady Cust's book on "the Cat" under CAT, not under ZOOLOGY or MAMMALS or DOMESTIC ANIMALS"."

      That's at least 137 years of established library science practice!

      On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:11 PM, <karen_bulow@...> wrote:

      I am a librarian turned content manager/taxonomist.  In my 15 years as a librarian, I was always taught to tag content to the appropriate term no matter the level.  I now am in the corporate world and am working on a database where I tag books and chapters. The designer of the database thinks that the books should not be tagged any lower than our first level in the taxo and subsequent information encompassed in that book should only be tagged at a lower level than the book tagging.  This is very limiting on the scope of the content I am working with for some books as some books, in my mind, should be tagged at a lower level as the content is specific to lower level tags.  What am I missing?  Has anyone else run across such rules?  Is there any validity to them? I don't see the validity in this. 




    • Show all 10 messages in this topic