Talk:Faceted classification

No link to MECE principle?

The [Knowledge Management Connection] article on Faceted classification mentions the MECE principle but that is not listed here. Any reason for that?

Incidentally Faceted classification is the theoretical foundations of the [Debian Package Tags] project. --16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

MECE is a bad idea

Sometimes an item needs to be in more than one category. MECE is fine for libraries, where each book can appear on only one shelf. There are no such restrictions in the world of data.

I clarified this point. Took me awhile. I see many articles and publication that seem to conflate multiple categorizations with faceted search. I see no such relationship. Most CMSes and eCommerce systems allowed for a document or item to be in A > B > C & X > Y > X both. This was never considered faceted search. Even before that, items were cross listed in libraries. I do not know 100% how that all relates to MECE, but it does relate to "only one shelf." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataSnarfer (talk • contribs) 10:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Major edit for clarity

The existing technical explanation of faceted classification was (imo) too difficult to understand if you're not already in the field. I focused the article on navigation since that's how most people are going to encounter FC.

This version of the article could use a section on the technical side of the topic.

I added to the contrast with folksonomies the fact that folksonomies are bottom up and FC's are top-down.

I added a link to the Flamenco open source FC project.

dweinberger 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

More perspective needed

As someone who has been pushing the advantages of faceted classification for over 10 years, I was extremely happy to discover that a useful Wikipedia page had been created for the topic.

However, given the steadily growing use of faceted classification and navigation for online retrieval requirements, this looks like a good time to make this page an even better resource. And I hope that FC experts like Kathryn La Barre and Claudio Gnoli will chime in, too. (I'll send them pointers to this discussion.)

It's also important to note that the functions of faceted classification do not exist in isolation from other needs in the area of "enterprise knowledge management." And that's probably a good place to start this rambling commentary.

So, keeping in mind that I'm not a purist when it comes to applying FC in enterprises ...

First of all, it's useful to think of a faceted classification schema as multiple discrete "taxonomies" -- usually hierarchical arrangements of concepts based on whole-part or IS-A relationships. Each taxonomy is a single hierarchy representing a property (characteristic) of an object or an information unit. (OK, a facet can be completely flat, but that's not usually the case.)

Multiple-parent (polyhierarchical) relationships are not used in such taxonomies. And the separate taxonomies are chosen because they are typically semantically orthogonal to each other. Think People, Places, Location, Size, Color, etc.

In a well-designed interface for navigating information organized in this way, it is very easy to drill down to a small set of objects ... and just as easy to step "up" to higher levels of abstraction, because you are usually working with multiple taxonomies simultaneously. In fact, the ease and speed with which you can find objects organized in this way (that is, by properties rather than by commonly accepted name) is probably best expressed as "rapid information thinning" -- a phrase I first heard used by Giovanni Sacco.

I think it's important to note that multiple taxonomies also typically form the backbone of computer ontologies, and that the use of such ontologies within enterprises and industry associations is growing rapidly. The emergence of the Web Ontology Language (OWL) seems to have added impetus to that trend.

Although most developers of ontologies seem to focus on navigation and discovery of information within an ontology as best aided by graphic visualization of typed relationships among concepts, a faceted navigation interface to taxonomies in ontologies would be a natural complement to such visualization -- especially in large ontologies. I haven't seen this done yet, but maybe it's out there.

Another perspective on faceted navigation is that it is a navigational analog to retrieval of information from a relational database. It replaces construction of queries. This is especially true if you ignore the more "religious" FC viewpoint that you cannot select more than one concept from the same facet. Boolean logic applies equally well in both cases, IMHO.

Faceted classification is so natural that people are always re-inventing it in isolation. For example, take a look at the Wikipedia feature request for intersecting categories. It seems they're looking at representation of static intersections of categories, but the basic principle is the same. The discussion page has lots of interesting observations about basic categorization challenges -- most of which could probably be addressed by an experienced LIS expert with knowledge of FC.

And one last point: It was nice to see Flamenco become Open Source, but it appears that we may be facing some potentially nasty intellectual property wars, what with patent claims on various approaches to faceted navigation by leading vendors. (Thanks, Kathryn, for helping to point that out.) I hope it doesn't come to that. (And I can't comment objectively on this topic, because the company I work for has purchased and implemented one of the leading commercial FC-based products -- at my recommendation.) PhilMurray46 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Faceted classification vs. Faceted search / navigation

A previous version of this entry included a list of faceted search vendors. Aside from the question of whether this list was accurate or complete or whether it was appropriate to include a list of vendors in this entry (I feel it should be in a separate List of Vendors entry), there was a confusion between faceted classification, which is a way to represent information, and faceted search / navigation, which is a way to access information represented using a faceted classification scheme.

A representative of one of the vendors on the vendor list recently contacted me about the removal of the list, suggesting that the edit be reversed. I argued against, but I believe this discussion should be held on the talk page, rather than privately--especially considering that I am also associated with vendor. I'm also blogging about this entry at The Noisy Channel and suggesting that readers chime in here. Dtunkelang (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Multi-dimensional Classification

I am unable to find any other work done on this besides the few papers by Zhunge et al. and even those seem to not have any significant number of citations. This does not appear to be notable and certainly should not comprise half of this article. A13ean (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability of the "Resource Space Model"

Is the "Resource Space Model" developed by Zhunge et al. notable in the context of its own page, faceted classification or Faceted search? A13ean (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No, just merge here as I proposed. No independent sources. But sounds relevant to this topic. Will work on it as I have time. W Nowicki (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not notable in any of these contexts. Dtunkelang (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa now. A publication does not need independent notability to be mentioned in an article on the topic of the publication. It just needs to be in a "reliable source", and I think several of the Zhunge papers do qualify as being reliable. So why censor it totally? I think you are goign too far, and this is just going to encourage edit wars and more spam. For example, the Knowledge Grid and Resource Space Model will probably keep reappearing. I think until the other approaches get more coverage, an argument of undue weight would say keep it down to a few sentences, which is what I tried to do. What is your reasoning for total censorship? This group does seem one of the largest projects in the world working on this topic. W Nowicki (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to include external sources, we should at least start with the most notable / impactful ones. And I question the reliability, especially given that Knowledge Grid is being considered for speedy deletion and Resource Space Model is currently blanked over copyright issues. And the author is someone I've never encountered despite writing a book on faceted search and being deeply connected to the community. All of these are red flags. Sorry if that strikes you as censorship, but I'm just protecting the quality of an entry for which I have strong domain expertise and no conflict of interest. Dtunkelang (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Merger

Faceted search is simply the use of a faceted classification system to find things, which is pretty much the only reason to make a faceted classification system in the first place. The application and examples overlap 100%, and discussion of one topic benefits from discussion of the other. In short, it's not good for the reader to have these topics split across two articles, so I intend to merge them. -- Beland (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I consider them separate topics because some faceted search is not based on a true faceted classification. You can run a faceted search anywhere that you have attributes that can present as limiters, such as sizes, colors, dates, places, etc. Faceted classification has a strong philosophical basis, in part because it arises from classification theory. It's the classification aspect of faceted classification that makes it a separate topic. I disagree with the statement on Faceted search that implies that all faceted searches take place on data that has been organized using a faceted classification. There are very very few actual faceted classifications, and many instances of faceted search over ordinary metadata. LaMona (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lamona: Apologies for the long delay in replying. The claim that faceted classification systems underlie faceted search is referenced on Faceted search to a book Daniel Tunkelang. I don't have access to that book, but that specific claim is repeated in Medium post by Tunkelang. Do you have any sources for the contrary claim that the popular technology of faceted search engines do not use "true" faceted classification systems? If they are different or if different terminology is used by different writers, we'd have to clearly explain the difference. Do you have an example that would clarify the distinction between a "true faceted classification" and "ordinary metadata"? -- Beland (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I notice this paper also seems to take the view that faceted classification underlies popular faceted search systems. These results seem to show academic authors using the faceted classification terminology when discussing faceted search engines. -- Beland (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi User:Beland Nearly a decade has gone by and of course I don't actually remember what was going on. I did look at the articles you listed, and I think the researchgate one is interesting because it refers to faceted classification as knowledge organization. To me, that's the back end, and search is the front end. If you looked at this article you see that their idea of faceted searching looks a lot like what you get with an Amazon search or a search in a library catalog. I think the question may be whether you consider the database back end of Amazon or similar sites to be classifications. I think it's clear that the elements stored in database tables can be "facets" and that those facets can be used in search and display. I'm not aware of people considering their database design to be a classification, and I don't know to what extent they consider their data to be "faceted."

I think the faceted search article could be beefed up - there's a lot out there to use. I suppose one option could be to begin that article (similar to the articles I found on G-Scholar) with a general discussion of "facets" as " a fundamental theory of knowledge organization" (that's from the researchgate article). However, I do think that there is enough content and sources for an article on the origins of facets for knowledge organization and the faceted classifications that were developed (even if not currently in use). (I actually worked with one in the mid-70's at a UN agency. I still have the huge book - I should arrange to have it scanned - there probably aren't any other copies around.)

So I propose 1) beef up the faceted search article, which is about things happening today 2) make clear that the faceted classification article is about knowledge organization and design, and has more of a historic nature 3) investigate if there is work being done today in knowledge organization/information architecture that brings the original faceted classification work up to date.

Does this make sense? Lamona (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Lamona: Well, I'm a professional programmer, and when we talk about the structure of a database, we talk about the data model, or more concretely e.g. for SQL, the database schema. That's the "model" in the popular web framework paradigm model-view-controller which I've used to make several faceted search engines. According to Classification scheme (information science), a data model is indeed a type of classification scheme. Any given search engine database seems to me to fit well among the schemes described at faceted classification. The paper you link to says that "the search paradigm using faceted classification is known as faceted search". Given that we have multiple academic sources saying faceted search uses faceted classification and none saying the opposite, and that we haven't been able to articulate an argument for why the opposite would be true, I conclude that the claim made by faceted search is true - that databases used by faceted search engines are in fact considered faceted classifications - and doesn't need to be fixed.

I think your intuition that the model - the faceted classification - is part of the backend is correct. I would say that "faceted search" refers to the whole search engine - model, view, and controller. Faceted search talks about faceted search user interfaces being invented in the 1990s. I would say that the problem of organizing and retrieving physical books from a library using a card catalog is solving the same information retrieval problem as an online document faceted search system. The card catalog, for example, serves much the same function as database indexes. But given the very different capabilities of analog paper systems to digital systems - especially those which can also search full text - and the different timeframes over which they developed, I can see an argument for keeping the articles separate. Is the user of a card catalog performing a faceted search, even if they can only search on one facet at a time? Maybe they are, but given the analog/digital differences and that the term hadn't been invented yet, perhaps the pre-digital user interfaces belong on faceted classification.

There's certainly a lot going on with ontologies and classifiers and taxonomies and whatnot in computer science, but I'm not sure to what degree it's under the heading of faceted data. It seems like libraries have simply moved from card catalogs to faceted search UIs, so in modern times I'm not sure there's much of one without the other. That said, yeah, both articles are only Start class right now, and I'm all in favor of your suggestion to expand both articles. That may help further reduce the overlap between them, which is probably smaller now than it was a decade ago. For now I just added a note on faceted classification explaining the relationship to faceted search, since the reverse note has been there for a while. Apologies for the long message. -- Beland (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Please bring discussion here

User:Andy_Dingley, before reverting changes, please bring discussion here. The edit you reverted did NOT limit faceted classification to libraries, but I also see edits here that do not seem to understand the difference between the use of "facets" in searching and faceted classification. Classification is a particular organization of knowledge and shouldn't be confused with the use of data elements and metadata in descriptions. There is an article on faceted search that does not depend on the existence of a faceted classification of knowledge. LaMona (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

It's BRD, not BDR.

Why remove analytic-synthetic ?

Why remove "fixed" from "Many library classification systems use a combination of a fixed, enumerative taxonomy of concepts with subordinate facets that further refine the topic."? Dewey et al are fixed, they are not folksonomies.

Why add "The key types of classifications used in libraries and document organization are enumerative and faceted. " to the definition of Faceted classification? This article isn't about what libraries use, it's about one technique that is applicable to libraries and non-libraries. This addition is an isolated fragment as placed here. I'm not averse to expansion of such content, but that one sentence alone isn't doing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

And then having requested discussion, you just start edit-warring to repeat the same changes anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Andy, chill! 1) I removed analytic-synthetic because it had been marked as needing clarification (for a long time). It doesn't seem to me to be something that would make sense in the lede to a casual reader. I'd like to add more about both analytic-synthetic and pre- and post-coordination to the article where there is room to fully explain the concepts. 2) If there are other types of organizations using faceted classification then let's add them. But AFAIK the kind of knowledge classification that this article is about is limited to libraries and documentation centers. 3) Making edits isn't edit-warring. And I am discussing this here. So now I would like to know if your definition of faceted classification is different from mine -- in other words, does your definition lean on the traditions of Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group of the 1970's, or are you thinking of something different? Perhaps you could show what you mean by offering some sources here. If we are thinking of different topics, we may need two articles, and we should find a way to differentiate between them by name. LaMona (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ranganathan is what, 50 years ago now? The CRG goes back to 1960(ish), not just "the 1970s". A lot has happened since, including basically all of IT. It has certainly moved outside the boundaries of the narrow library cataloguing scope seen then.

Even back then though, "analytic-synthetic" was a term commonly used in the literature. Why did you remove it, why did you remove it even after it had been linked? If it needs clarification, fine, but when does that ever become an excuse to "delete as WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT"? If it's important enough to include, even out of context (and it is, it pops up in the very first published work), then it's important to leave in there until someone explains it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Ranganthan is from the 1930's to 50's. However, "all of IT" is not what this article is about. Faceted classification is pretty well defined in library science. If you are intending something else, then let's talk about that. I'm not sure what "all of IT" means. And, as I said, analytic-synthetic (which in classification terms is not exactly what is in the linked article) can be included in the body of the article, which, BTW, isn't done yet. It can well be explained, but may hit people upside the head in the lede. If you feel strongly about adding it back in, do so, and then it an be explained more fully in the body. I was responding to an "explanation needed" note, but this isn't at all something I care deeply about. What I am concerned about is how we scope the content of the article, so I would like to hear what you want to add, preferably with sources. As I said, to my mind, this article is not about the IT use of facets, which is clearly distinct from faceted classification. There was a rather awkward attempt to address the IT view in Faceted search, but to my mind that article is pretty weak in content. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no representational difference (other than the form of presentation) between faceted classification and faceted search. Both are broad. Both overlap. Faceted search is simply the search function performed over one or more faceted classification domains. If articles suggest otherwise, it's the articles that are getting it wrong. The facets may be either hidden or overt, depending on the expectations of the users: if they're used to a faceted system already, leverage that knowledge; if they're not, and there's some useful synthesis to be made for transparent search over a cross product between two imported facets, then present it that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I went back and looked at earlier versions of the article, before I started editing. When I began, the article was almost solely about library science. In earlier versions there is a combination of the library science usage of the term and the IT usage - which I think was not clear. I agree with you that there are conceptual overlaps, although the library science "story" is quite specific with its own history. We could have a section in the article for the library science usage, with all of that history. Or we could have a mention of it, with a reference to a separate article. Either way, the treatment of faceting in IT terms (which I wouldn't refer to necessarily as classification) is no longer in the article so that content would need to be recaptured. What do you think would be best? LaMona (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)