RE: Spiteri's Simplied Model for Facet Analysis (RESOURCES)

>  Spiteri clearly comes down on the side of the CRG on this 
>  point, but it's worth re-emphasizing that exhaustiveness of 
>  categorization is not possible in rapidly changing 
>  organizational knowledgebases. It's far more important to 
>  categorize existing resources thoughtfully but as quickly as 
>  possible than to provide exhaustiveness. For me, FC allows 
>  you to do just that.

I agree. Going for exhaustiveness is silly.

>  But from my point of view, a FUNCTION cannot be a facet. A 
>  FUNCTION is described by *combining* terms from several 
>  facets. For example, in the world of Web caching, the 
>  function "Edit metadata" might draw from an ACTION facet and 
>  a DOMAIN OBJECT facet. Note that I am expressing the 
>  function as a natural language statement or declaration. The 
>  terms are combined with a simple syntax.

It depends on how you design your facets and how you use them. You could
easily have a facet called "Functionality" (for example in a map
describing CMS systems), but as you say, you could do this more detailed
with multiple facets. (think: a simple map describing CMS systems with
facets "functionality", "technical environment" and "cost"). I do agree
that forcing functionality in one facet is limiting, but that's the way
things go - see the comment on exhaustiveness.

>  "Breed" of dog or cat is not necessarily "permanent." The 
>  cat fanciers association, for example, "declassified" our 
>  beloved Himalayans, making them a subclass of Persians. And