First of all Keyword AAA (KAAA) is a records management tool not a library
tool.

KAAA, as John states, is based on a business classification scheme. The
scheme links business functions, activities and transactions in hierarchical
relationships. KAAA uses terms to describe the different types of functions,
activities, and transactions in the business classification scheme. The
terms are listed alphabetically in KAAA and linked to one and other by
broader, narrower, preferred and related relationships which replicate the
hierarchy in the classification scheme. 

Whereas traditional subject-based thesauri describe concepts and link them
in thing-type reltaionships, KAAA relates terms according to their position
in the classification scheme. In KAAA the function-activity-transaction
hierarchy is the generic-specific relationship as activities are the major
tasks performed within each function and transactions are the recurring
events that make up an activity.  So, why is this so important to records
managers?

well...classifying and arranging library material using a traditional
thesaurus is fine because the "value" of such material is based on the
subject (i.e. the content). However, records draw their "value" from the
context in which they are created, hence the need to classify (not
necessarily title) them according to the function, activity and transaction
which they evidence or enable. 

In my mind it matters not whether the relationship between say "PERSONNEL"
and "Committee" is described as "narrower term" or "allowable subheadings".
The fact is that KAAA does not comply with ISO or BS as it does not relate
concepts in thing-type mutually exclusive relationships, but is does do the
job for which it was designed. Unfortunately, it just borrows some of the
language from traditional thesauri which naturally involves running the risk
of confusing experienced users of such tools.

Regards,

Jonathan Whiting
Records Manager
Parliamentary Archives

PS We will of course be using the UNESCO thesaurus to index our automated
catalogue!!





In message <[log in to unmask]>
on Wed, 4 Oct 2000, John Lovejoy <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I agree with Will that Keyword AAA is not a thesaurus in the more
>traditional sense of the term.  I also agree that it is primarily used to
>title records.
>
>It is centered around a 'Business Classification Scheme', which is based on
>an analysis of business functions as mandated by the Australian Standard on
>Records Management AS 4390.  

OK, fine.

>Usually thesaurii are based on subjects.
>
>Because subject based and function based thesaurii are aimed at a different
>level, then there will be problems directly integrating them.  However, it
>should be able to be done by using the subject based thesaurus at the
>'subject descriptor' level of the Functional thesaurus.

The distinction between "subject" and "function" is not an inherent
distinguishing feature of a thesaurus. The word "subject" can often be
interpreted broadly as including "functions". The AAT thesaurus, for
example, contains a substantial hierarchy of functions within its
"activities" facet: 
see <http://shiva.pub.getty.edu/aat_browser/titles.html>

If it is most appropriate in a records management context to cite the
"function" facet first when constructing a pre-coordinated indexing
string, then there is nothing to stop you doing that with any standard
thesaurus which contains the required function terms. There is no need
to depart from the thesaurus construction standards when doing so.
>
>It does, however, have broader and narrower terms, preferred terms,  etc,
>just like a traditional thesaurus.

It uses the words "broader term" and "narrower term", but in a way that
is completely different from the meaning that these expressions are
defined to have in the standards. If the Keyword AAA were to substitute
the expressions "use as a subheading under" and "allowable subheadings"
it would be accurate, acceptable and much less confusing.

>As an example of the differences, consider a (hypothetical) medical
>thesaurus.  "cardiac infarction" is a preferred term for "Heart attack".
It
>is also a narrower term for "circulatory system disorders".

Yes, this is a correct use of the expression "narrower term" because
"cardiac infarction" is a _kind of_ "circulatory system disorder".

>  The
>(hypothetical) Department of Health has a business function of "Health risk
>minimisation", which has as narrower terms (activities) "research" and
>"public awareness".

No, these are not correct as narrower terms. "Research" and "public
awareness" are not always and inherently _kinds of_ "health risk
minimisation"; they can occur in other contexts. They may however be
_allowable subheadings_ when you need to construct an indexing string or
file title.  

>A record title of 'cardiac infarction' would probably
>be fairly meaningless in that setting, but if you were to title your files
>"Health risk minimisation - research - cardiac infarction"  or "Health risk
>minimisation - public awareness - cardiac infarction" then it would place
>that subject into the appropriate business context.

Yes, this is a reasonable way to construct titles for a pre-coordinate
indexing system. In each case there are three concepts which are being
combined at the time of indexing to represent the compound subject dealt
with in the record, according to rules which specify the order in which
the components should be cited. 

There is no generic-specific relationship between the three concepts, so
they would appear in separate hierarchies in a standard thesaurus. In a
system designed for post-coordinate computer searching they would be
allocated to a document as three separate indexing terms. The document
would then be retrieved even if the searcher just asked for any one or
two of the terms, such as ("cardiac infarction" AND "research"), 
irrespective of order. 
>
>The National Archives of Australia has endorsed the use of Keyword AAA for
>all Commonwealth Agencies (and has negotiated a licence enabling all such
>agencies to use it).

Fine, if it is found appropriate for these applications then there is no
problem in using it. My worry is that at a time when we are trying to
promote understanding of the benefits of controlled vocabulary and
thesauri for indexing all sorts of materials, the "Keyword AAA" uses
terms such as "thesaurus", "broader term" and "narrower term" in a
Humpty Dumpty way that will confuse discussion and learning. It could
either change its structure to become standards-compliant or it could
change its terminology as I suggested above to make clear what its
relationships actually mean.

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)20 8372 0094
[log in to unmask]               [log in to unmask]
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%