I hope some of you are more versed in this than I, and can shed some light on
a question about faculty interests intersecting research opportunities, all
identified via a thesaurus.  It seems like there is a fundamental difference
between how faculty describe their interests, and how sponsors describe
theirs.  To be successful, the two need to approach one another.  Some subject
lists don't work because they don't.  [ideally they have other atrributes,
too:  1) consistency between old and new versions; 2) minimal double-listing
of terms ; 3) a hierarchy of terms and a way to make the hierarchy useful;  4)
accessability--if the National Keyword Thesaurus, which is the official title
of the "Rodman thesaurus," is still being developed with federal funds, the
agencies might need only stipulate in the next contract that the product be
available to the public rather than privately copyrighted?).

Faculty tend to be very specific and focused ("atomization of metalurgical
coatings") and use the latest buzz words.  But the sponsor professes a broad
interest in  "surface science,"  and the newest "hot topic" doesn't appear.
One reason I like to conduct IRIS/SPIN type searches together with faculty is
to "interpret," to avoid overlooking viable areas that they might not view as
applicable.  Can you successfully use a subject list designed to reflect
sponsors' interests to describe faculty interests?  Or vice versa?   And then,
when you go to use the intersect of faculty/opportunity, don't you end up
using yet broader terms---"who could be involved in a collaborative project in
new applications in materials sciences?

//Celia
................................................................
Celia S. Walker
Assistant to VP Research      INTERNET:xxxxxx@vines.colostate.edu
Colorado State University     TEL:303/491-6355   DESK:303/491-7784
Ft. Collins, CO  80523        FAX:303/491-6147