[Sigia-l] mixing apples and oranges and tomatoes

[Mike.Steckel at SEMATECH.Org]

Traditionally, Peter is correct. Facets are generally post-enumerative. When you
are putting together your taxonomy, you break the item into mutually exclusive
pieces.  The user assembles the pieces they are looking for (this color, this
region, etc.) to find the item. If an item fits in more than one category in
your facet, you might not have broken the facet down enough. I suppose it could
also have more than one color.

After reading the fantastic interview with Samantha Bailey in Boxes and Arrows,
though, I thing what she says about the different definitions of taxonomy
certainly applies to facets. Part of what has been confusing to me is having
read some of Ranganathan. We tend to use facet in a different way on this list
than he intended I think.

-----Original Message-----
From: PeterV [mailto:peter at poorbuthappy.com]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 10:24 AM
To: sigia-l at asis.org
Subject: RE: [Sigia-l] mixing apples and oranges and tomatoes



> >But the way I understand faceted taxonomy, you still have mutually
> >exclusive categories within a single facet. The temptation seems to be to
> >place an item under more than one category within a single facet.

Nono, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but the *facets* should be mutually 
exclusive (like: colours, regions), not the things-within-the-facets (how 
do you call these things anyway? like: red, white).

"A facet is a "clearly definied, mutually exclusive, and collectively 
exhaustive aspects, properties or characteristics of a class or specific 
subject" (Maple 1997)"
PeterV
http://petervandijck.net 


_______________________________________________
Sigia-l mailing list
Sigia-l at asis.org
http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l