바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.43 No.3
Citation Share

A Study of Facet Classification System Development for Arts and Cultural Education

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science / Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, (P)1225-598X; (E)2982-6292
2009, v.43 no.3, pp.197-219
https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2009.43.3.197



& (2009). A Study of Facet Classification System Development for Arts and Cultural Education. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science, 43(3), 197-219, https://doi.org/10.4275/KSLIS.2009.43.3.197
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The study acknowledges the need for classification systems in arts and cultural education. The study constructs a faceted classification system for this domain based on systematic methods. The study utilized iterative collaboration between domain experts and classification system developers. The classification system consists of 13 main facets and terms. The classification system has values to manage information resources effectively and efficiently. It is also beneficial for reducing cultural gaps in arts and cultural education as well as providing an information gateway for users.

keywords
분류시스템, 패싯, 문화예술교육, 협력, Classification System, Facet, Arts and Cultural Education, Collaboration, Classification System, Facet, Arts and Cultural Education, Collaboration

Reference

1.

이병준. 2007. 문화예술교육정책의 비판적 재구성과 미래전망: 문화정책과 교육정책의 불완전한 통합을 넘어서. ꡔ문화정책논의ꡕ, 17: 9-38.

2.

Aitchison, J., Gilchrist, A., & Bawden, D. 2000. Thesaurus construction and use: a practical manual. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

3.

Bamford, A. 2006. The WOW-Factor. Germany: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.

4.

Bishoff, L., & Meagher, E.S. 2004. “Building Heritage Colorado: The Colorado digitization experience." Metadata in Practice. Diane I. Hillmann, & Elaine L. Westbrooks. ed., Chicago: American Library Association. 17-36.

5.

Broughton, V. 2006. “The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval.” Aslib proceedings, 58(1/2): 49-72.

6.

Chiu, M. L. 2002. “An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration." Design Studies, 23(2): 187-210.

7.

Foster, A., & Ford, N. 2003. “Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study." Journal of Documentation, 59(3): 321 - 340.

8.

Gilchrist, A. 2000. “Taxonomies for business: description of a research project." [online]. [cited 2009.8.10]. <http://www.bokis.is/iod2001/papers/Gilchrist_paper.doc>.

9.

Hjørland, B., & Albrechtsen, H. 1995. “Toward a New Horizon in Information Science: Domain- Analysis." Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 46(6): 400-425.

10.

Kwasnick, B. H. 1999. “The Role of Classification in Knowledge Representation and Discovery." Library Trends, 48(1): 22-47.

11.

Leonard, W. 2004. “Thesaurus Consultancy." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 37(3-4): 75-85.

12.

Ranganathan, S. R. 1967. Prolegomena to library classification. New York: Asia Publishing House.

13.

Spiteri, L. 1998. “Simplified Model for Facet Analysis." Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 23: 1-30. [online]. [cited 2009.8.15]. <http://www.iainstitute.org/en/learn/research/a_simplified_model_for_facet_analysis.php>.

14.

Sutton, S.A. 2004 “Digital Library Infrastructure: Metadata and the Education Domain." Metadata in Practice. Diane I. Hillmann, & Elaine L. Westbrooks. ed., Chicago: American Library Association. 1-16.

15.

Trigg, R., & Clement, A. 2000. CPSR- participatory design. [online]. [cited 2009.8.10]. <http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/program/workplace/PD.html>.

16.

Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. 1996. “Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications." Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2).

17.

Wimmer, M. 2009. Reflecting on the Domain of Arts Education. [online]. [cited 2009.8.10]. <http://www.educult.at/fileadmin/files/Text/Preliminary_final_draft_MW240609.pdf>.

18.

Woods, E. 2004. Building a corporate taxonomy: Benefits and Challenges. [online]. [cited 2009.8.15]. <http://tinyurl.com/ao22w>.

19.

Wyllie, J., Skyrme, D. J., & Lelic, S. 2003. Taxonomies: frameworks for corporate knowledge: the shape of things to come. London, UK: Ark Group.

20.

Art & Architecture Thesaurus. [online]. <http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/vocabularies/aat/>.

21.

Compendium Initiatives for Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe. [online]. <http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/profiles-download.php?cid=0&aid=1>.

22.

Epicurious. [online]. <http://www.epicurious.com/>.

23.

ERIC Thesaurus(Education Resources Information Center) [online]. <http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/resources/html/thesaurus/about_thesaurus.html>.

24.

European Glossary. [online]. <http://www.cultuurnetwerk.nl/glossary>.

25.

UNESCO Road Map for Arts Education. 2006. [online].<http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=30335&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>.

Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science

e-Submission OA Policy