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

Re: [TaxoCoP] Not otherwise classified

Expand Messages
  • John O'Gorman
    Set Widget as a Term in a Use Class Set Manual . Automatic , and Specialty as Terms in a Status Class Set Wadget , Wodget , Wudget and Wedget as
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 10, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Set 'Widget' as a Term in a Use Class
      Set 'Manual'. 'Automatic', and 'Specialty' as Terms in a Status Class
      Set 'Wadget', 'Wodget', 'Wudget' and 'Wedget' as Terms in the Use Class (someone will come along with these eventually)
      Set all of the products as Names in an Asset Class
       
       
      (You do all of this in anticipation of the inevitable new combinations.)
       
       
      Associate all of the relevant terms from the first three Classes to the members of the Asset Class.
       
      Since each Class is orthogonal to all of the other Classes you end up with three things that are useful (highest compliment) to contributor, controllers and consumers:
       
      1. Controll of the Terms and Names
      2. Application of the standard Terms and Names to any new Asset
      3. Multi-faceted access (search, navigation and filtering) from any point in the collection.
       
      John O'
       
       
       
       
       
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jonathan Fuller [mailto:jonathan.m.fuller@...]
      Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 08:25 AM
      To: 'Adrian Walker', TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Not otherwise classified

       

      Adrian:

      Our paid clients are manufacturers and distributors, and we provide
      parametric search for their products and organize said products using
      our product taxonomy.

      So let's say we have this taxonomy structure:

      Widgets
          Automatic Widgets
          Manual Widgets

      So then a new client comes along who manufactures wadgets. A wadget is
      very specialized form of widget, and the client expresses that it is
      so specialized that they would rather not have it listed as a
      "traditional" widget at all (this occurs surprisingly often). If we
      change the scope of the Widgets term to include wadgets, we risk the
      near certainty of angering the hundreds of clients already listed to
      that product area. So we have two options to get these products listed
      and make the client happy:

      Widgets
         Automatic Widgets
         Manual Widgets
         Wadgets

      This method typically turns out to be too granular - we can't set a
      precedent of simply adding a taxonomy area for every client who makes
      a specialized product. --OR--

      Widgets
         Automatic Widgets
         Manual Widgets
         Specialty Widgets (including wadgets and all other specialized widgets)

      We now have a "bucket" area for all specialized widgets that don't fit
      in the other widget areas, and it's our estimation that using these
      bucket areas dilutes the rest of taxonomy and buries entities where
      they shouldn't be.

      We're wondering if anyone else might have a potential solution to this
      unique problem.



      On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@...> wrote:
      Hi Jonathan,

      Could you provide a small example?  With fictionalized names if you like.

      We may have a solution.

                        Thanks,  -- Adrian

      Internet Business Logic
      A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
      Online at www.reengineeringllc.com   
      Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

      Adrian Walker
      Reengineering

      On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Fuller <jonathan.m.fuller@...> wrote:
       

      Hi all,

      I work with a group responsible for managing a ~3900 term product
      taxonomy. We have around 100 product areas that are termed 'Specialty'
      in that the classified products do not fit neatly in any other area.
      We use these terms for internal classification, but they (and the
      entities classified) are not published to our user-facing website. Our
      problem is that we want products within these Specialty areas to
      appear published on our site, but in order to be published they must
      be classified to a published taxonomy area. We do not want to publish
      the Specialty areas due to their "bucket-like" nature.

      We obviously do not want to get down to extremely granular
      product-level categories. I'm looking for insight on how others have
      handled this "doesn't fit anywhere else" problem.

      Thanks,

      Jonathan Fuller
      Taxonomist
      GlobalSpec has been acquired by IHS



       

    • Clint Elmore
      Sadly, I do run into this quite often. What I have found that works best is a frank discussion with the manufacturer who thinks they are special. Every widget
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 11, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Sadly, I do run into this quite often. What I have found that works best is a frank discussion with the manufacturer who thinks they are special.  Every widget producer thinks that their widget is unique from the other widgets and they want special treatment.  By having a frank discussion with them selling them on the fact that you won't treat the competition (who also has a special widget) any different or better than you classify their widget usually helps.  I also tell them that (in my world of ecommerce product taxonomy) if a customer is looking for an automatic widget that is what the customer is going to click on.  And that although their widget is clearly a superior super duper deluxe automatic widget, if they want the customer to see their product, they need to classify with the inferior automatic widgets.  Yes, I blow a lot of smoke and feed their egos. That is usually enough to pacify them. I also tell them that that the best way to up sell to their widget is with the content on their product.
         
         
        At the end of the day, Sears owns the taxonomy, not the vendor, manufacturer or supplier.  Sears owns the relationship to our customers. We are the experts and have to look at the whole picture, not just one vendor and one line of products. I want the manufacturer's input and opinion, but only in extreme cases will they ever dictate to what the taxonomy is.
         
         
        Clint Elmore
        Sr. Taxonomist & Interim Manager
        Sears Holdings
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:25 AM
        Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Not otherwise classified

         

        Adrian:

        Our paid clients are manufacturers and distributors, and we provide
        parametric search for their products and organize said products using
        our product taxonomy.

        So let's say we have this taxonomy structure:

        Widgets
            Automatic Widgets
            Manual Widgets

        So then a new client comes along who manufactures wadgets. A wadget is
        very specialized form of widget, and the client expresses that it is
        so specialized that they would rather not have it listed as a
        "traditional" widget at all (this occurs surprisingly often). If we
        change the scope of the Widgets term to include wadgets, we risk the
        near certainty of angering the hundreds of clients already listed to
        that product area. So we have two options to get these products listed
        and make the client happy:

        Widgets
           Automatic Widgets
           Manual Widgets
           Wadgets

        This method typically turns out to be too granular - we can't set a
        precedent of simply adding a taxonomy area for every client who makes
        a specialized product. --OR--

        Widgets
           Automatic Widgets
           Manual Widgets
           Specialty Widgets (including wadgets and all other specialized widgets)

        We now have a "bucket" area for all specialized widgets that don't fit
        in the other widget areas, and it's our estimation that using these
        bucket areas dilutes the rest of taxonomy and buries entities where
        they shouldn't be.

        We're wondering if anyone else might have a potential solution to this
        unique problem.



        On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@...> wrote:
        Hi Jonathan,

        Could you provide a small example?  With fictionalized names if you like.

        We may have a solution.

                          Thanks,  -- Adrian

        Internet Business Logic
        A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
        Online at www.reengineeringllc.com   
        Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements

        Adrian Walker
        Reengineering

        On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Jonathan Fuller <jonathan.m.fuller@...> wrote:
         

        Hi all,

        I work with a group responsible for managing a ~3900 term product
        taxonomy. We have around 100 product areas that are termed 'Specialty'
        in that the classified products do not fit neatly in any other area.
        We use these terms for internal classification, but they (and the
        entities classified) are not published to our user-facing website. Our
        problem is that we want products within these Specialty areas to
        appear published on our site, but in order to be published they must
        be classified to a published taxonomy area. We do not want to publish
        the Specialty areas due to their "bucket-like" nature.

        We obviously do not want to get down to extremely granular
        product-level categories. I'm looking for insight on how others have
        handled this "doesn't fit anywhere else" problem.

        Thanks,

        Jonathan Fuller
        Taxonomist
        GlobalSpec has been acquired by IHS



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