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

문화예술교육 패싯 분류체계 설계에 대한 연구

  • 박옥남 (성균관대학교 사서교육원) ;
  • 오삼균 (성균관대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 김세영 (성균관대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Published : 2009.09.30


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.


  1. Aitchison, J., Gilchrist, A., & Bawden, D. 2000. Thesaurus construction and use: a practical manual. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.
  2. Kwasnick, B. H. 1999. “The Role of Classification in Knowledge Representation and Discovery." Library Trends, 48(1): 22-47.
  3. ERIC Thesaurus(Education Resources Information Center) [online]. .
  4. UNESCO Road Map for Arts Education. 2006. [online]. .
  5. Hjorland, 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.<400::AID-ASI2>3.0.CO;2-Y
  6. Wimmer, M. 2009. Reflecting on the Domain of Arts Education. [online]. [cited 2009.8.10]. .
  7. Art & Architecture Thesaurus. [online]. .
  8. Gilchrist, A. 2000. “Taxonomies for business: description of a research project." [online]. [cited 2009.8.10]. .
  9. Spiteri, L. 1998. “Simplified Model for Facet Analysis." Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 23: 1-30. [online]. [cited 2009.8.15]. .
  10. Trigg, R., & Clement, A. 2000. CPSR- participatory design. [online]. [cited 2009.8.10]. .
  11. European Glossary. [online]. .
  12. Ranganathan, S. R. 1967. Prolegomena to library classification. New York: Asia Publishing House.
  13. 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.
  14. Leonard, W. 2004. “Thesaurus Consultancy." Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 37(3-4): 75-85.
  15. Chiu, M. L. 2002. “An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration." Design Studies, 23(2): 187-210.
  16. Epicurious. [online]. .
  17. Bamford, A. 2006. The WOW-Factor. Germany: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.
  18. 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.
  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. 이병준. 2007. 문화예술교육정책의 비판적 재구성과 미래전망: 문화정책과 교육정책의 불완전한 통합을 넘어서. "문화정책논의", 17: 9-38.
  21. 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.
  22. Foster, A., & Ford, N. 2003. “Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study." Journal of Documentation, 59(3): 321 - 340.
  23. Uschold, M., & Gruninger, M. 1996. “Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications." Knowledge Engineering Review, 11(2).
  24. Compendium Initiatives for Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe. [online]. .
  25. Woods, E. 2004. Building a corporate taxonomy: Benefits and Challenges. [online]. [cited 2009.8.15]. .