badapplesdatabase
commented
9 years ago I think classifications should be a controlled vocab --- it forces SFM to be thoughtful about how we think about organizations, especially as we want the Map and other elements to be informative, but as "clean" and non-cluttered as possible. I don't want a map with 50 different filters for instance. I would also hope that this would force the SFM to have internal conversations about adding classifications when staff come across Organizations that don't really fit in any category, or would be better captured and displayed by adding a category.
In this case, if there is a need for a new term, there will need to be a defined process to update the taxonomy list e.g. SFM staffer flags missing tag, submits a suggestion - with examples -of need for new tag, which then I can approve (or fire off to others for a view); then the taxonomy list in the backend is updated, making the Classification tag available to the SFM staffer.
jpmckinney
Uses: 1) Provide the selection for “layers” on map 2) Give context to users in dossiers 3) Used for “Perpetrator Organization” field in the Events category where specific organization is not named as a perpetrator. Here the SFM is trying to be as faithful to NGO reporting as possible- without copying verbatim when perpetrators are described as “soldiers”, “policemen” or other terms that wouldn’t make sense as classifications for organizations
The Classifications will attempt to be a generalized as possible --- eg Police, Army, Navy --- but will need to also have country specific classifications to make the Monitor useful to country experts (only having generalized classifications would make the Monitor harder to use for country experts, and not significantly easier for non-experts).