Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
In addition, the analysis of audiovisual corpora using such working scripts was
carried out in collaboration with groups of interested parties (
stakeholders
) who
expressed a particular expectation as regards the analysis of these corpora: teachers
of French literature; trainers and teachers in intercultural communication; young
researchers specializing in the collection and preservation of intangible cultural
heritage; professional archaeologists in charge of preserving the tangible heritage of
a French
départment
; an international network of researchers concerned with
enriching a video-library dedicated to documenting a geopolitical region, and so on.
An important activity with these groups of people was, of course, identifying and
ranking the subjects (or themes) which were most pertinent, most important for a
specific stakeholder. In summary, it was a question of carrying out an
analysisofthe
need
for information or knowledge in relation to or in conjunction with the
stakeholders in question.
In a
secondstage
, the scripts describing the themes identified were subjected to a
comparative analysis
. Comparing the scripts created by the analysts enabled us to
identify - in reference to the theoretical framework briefly outlined in Chapter 1 -
and describe the most commonly recurring
trends
(thematic, discursive, relating to
visual
mise en scène
), and classify them into semantically-homogeneous groups,
using them to define types of elements, i.e. conceptual terms expressing “knowledge
spaces”,
topoi
relating to this-or-that type of object analyzed. As we well know, this
is a delicate task which necessarily relies upon a sort of
principle of constant
cognitive revision
due to the intrinsic limits and to the “subjectivity” inherent in any
categorization and classification.
A
third stage
in the construction of the ASW meta-lexicon of conceptual terms
consisted of grouping the conceptual terms. This task of grouping covers three
points which are mutually complementary but clearly distinct:
‒
grouping the conceptual terms to reveal more and more general types of
conceptual terms;
‒
grouping the conceptual terms making up a specific
taxonomic domain
(see
below, section 13.3);
‒
identifying the conceptual terms which form the
basis
or indeed the
canonic
base
for the vocabulary of conceptual terms representing analytical objects in the
ASW
universeofdiscourse*
.
As regards specifically the conceptual terms which should form the canonic base
of the conceptual vocabulary, one of the main concerns was to evaluate them in
relation to, and compare them with, pre-existing conceptual categories. In our case,
this refers particularly to approved categories which are formally defined in the so-
called
upper-level
or
top-levelontologies
.
