I was going to say something to similar to this, but Crispin beat me to
it and put it pretty eloquently.

Phil's idea is right, in some ways, but would be less useful than what
Crispin suggests.

The difference as I see it is that under Phils method each term would
only be in once in one place (stone is only an inorganic mineral),
whereas under Crispins things might be in more than once in different
places (stone could be an Object material, building material, covering
material etc). The second is not a problem though might be or difficult
to manage, but is I think more useful for helping you to index things.

If I want to see things I could use to describe a roof, I don't want to
have to figure out which terms are sensible or not each time I view the
thesaurus, from a pick list and have to look in more than one place for
them (it could have organic and inorganic material in after all) but
want to see  list of all sensible options in one place to select from.

Hope that makes sense

best wishes

Nick Boldrini
Historic Environment Record Officer
Heritage and Environment Section
Development and Countryside Service
Business and Environmental Services Directorate
North Yorkshire County Council
County Hall
Northallerton
DL7 8AH
Direct Dial (01609) 532331

Conserving North Yorkshire's heritage - encouraging sustainable access
www.northyorks.gov.uk/archaeology 

This email is personal. It is not authorised by or sent on behalf of
North Yorkshire 
County Council, however, the Council has the right and does inspect
emails sent from 
and to its computer system. This email is the sole responsibility of
the sender

>>> Crispin Flower <[log in to unmask]> 07/02/2007 10:54 >>>
looking at this a completely different might lead to a different
conclusion...
When indexing a record, or when searching for records, a good
thesaurus
will show you terms that are all potentially relevant to the context.
So
if I am trying to enter what my building is made of, I would like to
see
options like brick, cob, stone, timber. I don't want to see feather,
amber, faience, which would just make me giggle or get cross depending
on mood. Same applies when trying to index the materials for my Saxon
brooch , etc.
 
Perhaps when describing object materials, each indexing term should
describe a homogenous substance, say at the level of visibility to the
human eye (rather than molecular). Thus amber, chert, silver, bronze,
glass, feather = good. (Fun to be had with pottery fabrics I know -
visible temper etc - this approach would allow these to be indexed).
Whereas for hull construction or building materials the useful terms
are
really often shorthands that encompass information about a mixture of
materials, object types, and techniques. e.g. describing a building as
"brick" is valid and conveys useful info, but it is a very different
concept from object material.
Lastly, isn't a material "by form" by definition not a material - it's
an object!
 
i.e. just because "hull material", "building material" and "object
material" all have the same word, doesn't mean they should all use the
same term list because the word actually doesn't mean the same thing
in
the different contacts.
Think broader and the same word has a huge range of meanings -
historical material, a musician's material, it's a material world
after
all.
 
cheers
Crispin
________________________________

From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CARLISLE, Philip
Sent: 07 February 2007 10:01
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: [FISH] His Dark Materials 2: The Subtle Difference



Dear all

Having cogitated, ruminated, pondered and, indeed, thought about this
long and somewhat hard-ish. I have now come to the following
conclusion.

 

Materials are, by their very nature, organic (from plants and animals)
or inorganic (from other stuff such as rocks and things).

 

This therefore would appear to give us our top terms.

 

Below these we would have (under organic) Animal and Vegetal and
(under
inorganic) Mineral.

 

Inorganic would also be used to cover manmade materials (should that
be
person-made in these PC days?) such as plastics etc. Although whether
this is technically correct for those manmade materials made from
organic products, such as plastics made form oil, I don't know.

 

I'm also proposing we have another top term called Forms - this would
cover all those things from the Material <By form> hierarchy in the
current building materials thesaurus: brick, tile, timber etc.

 

By including this we wouldn't have to re-index all those brick or
timber-framed buildings. Nor indeed add additional layers of
complexity
by indexing everything with fired clay or mud etc.

 

I think the artificiality of differentiating between building
materials
and object materials can be done away with. Any introductory
information
attached to the thesaurus could state, quite clearly, that the
thesaurus
can be used to record both but that they should be used with caution.

 

I've attached a schematic for your perusal.

 

What do people think?

 

Phil

 

Phil Carlisle

Data Standards Supervisor

English Heritage

National Monuments Record Centre

Kemble Drive 

Swindon

SN2 2GZ

+44 (0)1793 414824

 

http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/ 

 

The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may
be
privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have
received
the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your
system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone
else
or copied without the sender's consent.

Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the
author
and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English
Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.

 


WARNING

This E-mail and any attachments may contain information that is confidential or privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken is prohibited and may be unlawful.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily the view of the Council.

North Yorkshire County Council.