Hi,
While we're on the subject of a 'trunk' thesaurus, it seems to me that at least
some of the problems discussed in recent days could be avoided by adopting a
stricter definition of 'period'. If our aim is to construct a period thesaurus,
then I don't see why we should even try to include events, architectural styles,
kings and queens. It should be easier to agree among ourselves if we can ignore
such things! Of course I'm not suggesting that it would not be enormously useful
to be able to find information using non-period terms that have some
chronological content, but I do think that it would be better (read more
practicable) to have a two-tier (or 'trunk' and 'branches') system, where the
second tier would involve the user in an additional step, namely that of finding
out which period and/or region his or her search term belongs to. For example,
if I were interested in Baroque archaeology, the thesaurus would first give me
the definition (or 'scope note') of Baroque as a period name, then ask if I want
to conduct the search using the closest first-tier (or 'trunk') period
equivalent of Baroque - 18th century or whatever. If the closest period
equivalent of my search term varies depending on the geographic area, then I
guess the thesaurus could react by giving me a clickable options list so I could
pick one or more of the areas of interest, and conduct the search.
How's that sound?
Martijn van Leusen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|