In message <[log in to unmask]> on 
Fri, 2 Jun 2006, "Carol E.B. Choksy, Ph.D., CRM" 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote
>Beware of the difference between library-based and records management 
>taxonomies because the focus for each is entirely different and the 
>methods are different.

The underlying principles are not really different, just the way in 
which they are applied. If I may use the terminology of faceted 
classification, records management classification schemes usually 
combine facets using a citation order of "function - activity - {task | 
topic | transaction}", whereas schemes which emphasise the subject 
approach, as normally used in libraries and information services, 
usually cite the "discipline" facet first. The order of other facets 
then varies according to the subject.

The main thing to be careful about is the distinction between 
hierarchical relationships within a facet, as expressed in a thesaurus 
by the broader/narrower term relationship, and the combination of terms 
from
different facets into subject indexing strings, as is done in a faceted 
classification scheme.

I prefer not to use the expression "taxonomy" because it is often used 
for schemes which blur or ignore this distinction.

I have discussed this a little more fully in a note at
<http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/functhes.htm>

Leonard Will
-- 
Willpower Information       (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
Information Management Consultants              Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
27 Calshot Way, Enfield, Middlesex EN2 7BQ, UK. Fax: +44 (0)870 051 7276
[log in to unmask]               [log in to unmask]
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance