4637Re: [TaxoCoP] Tagging to levels
- Oct 19, 2013Hi allSome 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:ZOOLOGY=> ANIMALS=> DOMESTIC ANIMALS=> CATThe content metadata would include:Title: The CatSubject: "CAT"Broader subjects: DOMESTIC ANIMALS, ANIMALS, ZOOLOGYFor 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 Morrisp.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:
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>