In message <[log in to unmask]> on Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Tyler
Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote
>I would argue that all terminologies [i.e. typologies] should be
>removed from the thesaurus: species and other modifiers should be
>removed entirely, as they are not materials.
I think that you are arguing that the BM thesaurus goes down to too
great a level of specificity for your purpose. That is fair enough, but
I don't think that the solution is just to remove modifiers from terms.
Sometimes specific concepts have single-word terms of their own, whereas
in other cases they are made up of a more generic term preceded by a
modifier (sometimes called a "difference").
It would not be reasonable to exclude "chamois leather" because it
contained two words while accepting "shagreen" and "suede" because they
have only one word. As you said yourself, we should be concerned with
concepts when deciding on the appropriate level of specificity rather
than the single or multi-word terms used to label those concepts.
Leonard
--
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)870 051 7276
[log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------
|