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

Re: [TaxoCoP] A question for everybody. How easy is it to create a faceted Taxonomy?

Expand Messages
  • Melvin Jay Kumar
    Adding on to the excellent advice, a couple of points to be aware off: 1) Understanding excatly what is the purpose of the facets and how they are going to
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Adding on to the excellent advice, a couple of points to be aware off:

      1) Understanding excatly what is the purpose of the facets and how
      they are going to help the end users AND ALSO how it benefits the
      business. It's a simple point , but 3/4 of the implementations I've
      been involved in ( they always call you in only in the last minute)
      the business or the technical team can't seem to articulate the
      purpose of why they are using facets at all....

      2) Understanding that there are two parts to developing a faceted
      browsing / searching system. There is the interface aspect.......which
      most people don't seem to be aware offf...and then there is the facet
      development aspect. If either of these are not taken into
      consideration , your project ALWAYS ends up a failture.

      3) Updating the facets should be part of the project on how maintenace
      should be done.

      4) Lastly, usability testing should always be part of the project from
      the scoping to the maintenace phase.

      Very high level points, but things I felt needed mentioning.


      Jay kumar

      On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Avi Rappoport <analyst@...> wrote:
      > Not only should it be it easy to add facets, but it's a good idea
      > allow additional metadata to spawn facets (or at least sub-facets)
      > dynamically. That is, if you have a facet for price, and you have
      > ranges from $1 to $200, adding a $300 item should just update nicely,
      > without much, if any, work. If it requires significant effort, your
      > facet-handling tools may be misconfigured or inappropriate.
      > Trying to anticipate all possible facets can be a huge time-sink as
      > well. I've seen so many installations where the project managers,
      > domain experts, and even taxonomists have gone ahead with their
      > expert opinions instead of starting from user testing, and iterating
      > several times based on actual use. If the experts guess wrong, a lot
      > of effort is wasted. So I'd say start simple.
      > Avi
      > At 10:16 PM +0000 9/30/08, alexkatsanos2 wrote:
      >>Specifically, if we create a faceted layout, then how difficult would
      >>it be to add more facets later?
      >>That way we wouldn't have to go so crazy trying to make sure we have
      >>every single facet imaginable whether or not we need them.
      >>Alex Katsanos
      > --
      > Enterprise Search Analysis -- Search Tools Consulting
      > (510) 845-2551 / analyst8@...
      > Complete Guide to Search Engines for Web Sites and Intranets:
      > <http://searchtools.com>
    • Linda Sutherland
      ... May I de-lurk for a moment, please, to try to clarify something? My comments aren t directed at you specifically, Eric - yours isn t the only post (on this
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:15 03/10/2008 -0400, Eric Erickson wrote:
        >Library items are only classified once, but digital resources and
        >items in the catalogue may have multiple tags.

        May I de-lurk for a moment, please, to try to clarify something? My
        comments aren't directed at you specifically, Eric - yours isn't the
        only post (on this and other lists) to give me the impression that
        the functions of traditional library classifications aren't well

        The point that so often seems to be missed is that library
        classifications were designed to do two things at once - identify the
        subject matter contained within a physical item, and identify the
        location of each item on the shelves. Taxonomies for electronic
        resources are concerned only with the first function - information
        retrieval. To compare them to library methods of *item* retrieval is
        inevitably going to cause confusion.

        "Library items are only classified once" is true if:

        a) the classification is hierarchical (to librarians that means ones
        like Dewey and LOC);

        b) the classification is viewed purely as a device for item

        It's true, in those circumstances, because of the obvious fact that
        each *physical* item can have only one location in a classified

        In the case of faceted classifications, the statement is partly true.
        These classifications do allow you to 'tag' an item with multiple
        descriptors, but in non-digital libraries the codes for these 'tags'
        are then combined in a specified order to produce a single code
        identifying the location of the physical item on the shelves.

        In both cases, the statement is not true for the library function of
        information retrieval. The *content* of a library item can, as Paula
        says, be given multiple access points within the catalogue, and these
        access points may be sorted in any order thought useful. True, those
        'tags' are attached to a surrogate (the catalogue entry) rather than
        directly to the physical item itself, but that doesn't stop them from
        fulfilling a similar role in content retrieval.

        Linda Sutherland
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.