In message <005f01c74ab0$98e3e480$0201a8c0@geoff> on Wed, 7 Feb 2007, 
geoff carver <[log in to unmask]> wrote
>Some really calcareous limestone...? coal...?
>Fossils...?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH)
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Leonard Will
>Sent: February 7, 2007 13:04
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [FISH] His Dark Materials 2: The Subtle Difference
>
>
>So it is valid to say that stone has the broader term "inorganic
>material" because all stone is inorganic material.
>
Well, that depends on your definition of "inorganic material". It is 
just a label for a concept, after all. If you define the concept to 
exclude certain types of material, then the relationships in your 
thesaurus should reflect that.

You can have a scope note that defines "inorganic" as not involving any 
living organisms in its formation or transformation, or as not 
containing carbon compounds, or as those types of fruit and vegetable 
that are not labelled "organic"  :-).

If the concept cannot be defined in a way that is clear and useful to 
the users, then perhaps you should not use it.

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)870 051 7276
[log in to unmask]               [log in to unmask]
---------------- <URL:http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/> -----------------