Going back to a thread I started last week
Richard Light wrote, in the context of what format of standard has been used
to index records...
>In any of these cases, the resulting recorded term *can* be used by
>someone who *does* have access to thesaurus-aware software to expand
>searches, etc. This applies whether or not the original recorder is
>aware of the hierarchical context of the concept they chose to record.
I think my concern over this, Richard, lies in the fact that effective use
of a thesaurus for indexing does require some knowledge and understanding of
the structure of the whole thesaurus. For example, if you know that a term
exists further up the hierarchy in a thesaurus (take the example of
NONCONFORMIST CHAPEL for e.g. from the Thesaurus of Monument Types, which
has PLACE OF WORSHIP as a term further up the hierarchy) then it is not good
practice to index a record with both terms, as the assumption is that the
thesaurus built into the retrieval software will allow a user to search by
the broad term, plus its narrow terms. The most specific term supported by
the available evidence should be used.
If, as I think you are suggesting, the original indexer of the record has no
knowledge of the structure of the hierarchy, then the tendency would I think
be to index using redundant terms (e.g. both NONCONFORMIST CHAPEL and PLACE
OF WORSHIP) or (worse) index only with the broader term.
In the context of alternative methods of compliance with the new standard
for Archive Types maybe all we need is clear instructions on how to index
using the alternative versions of the standard. I'd be happy if we can take
the route you suggest Richard - but I'm not quite sure we've explored all
the potential pitfalls yet.
Edmund
|