[Sigia-l] Taxonomy discussion.

[Bryar, Jack]

Joe/Chiara: 
For what it is worth, I've been involved with taxonomy development at Dialog
and elsewhere. 
The problem is, as joe suggests, that too many IA types seem to assume that
taxonomies are just keyword metadata tags slopped onto documents, and they
don't understand, (and thus devalue)  the process of developing the taxonomy
itself. 
Properly developed, a taxonomy can provide for enhanced , and prioritized
access to critical information. It can even allow for "knowledge discovery"
- the feeding of "just the right" documents to an individual who didn't know
precisely what he was looking for or how to articulate his/her requirements.
Badly done, it obscure valuable information, spam the researcher with crap
(ensuring minimal use of corporate resources) and even mask essential
processes from senior management (leading to disaster) .

I've developed some documentation on how to go about the process of taxonomy
development as well as best practices (and the impact of bad ones)
If people are interested, feel free to contact me at my home email
bryar at vermontel.com

Joe - I'd be particularly interested in the details of your experience. Feel
free to contact me privately at the email address above. I'd love to compare
notes. 
Jack Bryar



   8. RE: Taxonomy/Classification IA and Enterprise IA [warning: Ramble
Follows, Will Robinson] (joe )

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:09:07 -0500
From: "joe " <joe at sokohl.com>
Reply-To: <joe at sokohl.com>
To: <sigia-l at asis.org>
Subject: [Sigia-l] RE: Taxonomy/Classification IA and Enterprise IA
[warning: Ramble Follows, Will Robinson]

From: "Chiara Fox" <chiara at chiarafox.com>
>Also, what about Enterprise IA? We don't talk much about that
>around here.
>I see the taxonomy/classification type of IA feeding into
>Enterprise IA rather easily.

Great point. Sadly, the enterprise architecture group where I work as an
editor (they didn't have an opening for a UX person but I needed a job) sees
information architecture from the MIT-data architecture viewpoint. Yes, I
know there are overlaps...but enterprise architecture simply doesn't seem to
take users into account--certainly not at the place where I work. Indeed,
I've proposed the position of user experience architect to be a peer with
the network architect and the security architect and the applications
architect and the network-based services architect and so on...to no avail.

Despite my attempts to introduce SIGIA-L knowledge and discussions, despite
my bibliographic mails espousing Wodtke and Reiss and Rosenfeld and
Moorville and Krebs and Kahn and Norman and Nielsen and Garrett and so on,
and despite my attempts to brign my experiences to them through the back
door, the door remains closed. Metadata activities center around identifying
which servers a piece of content resides on, who has access, and so on.
Comments about taxonomy devolve into discussion about org charts. Mentions
about controlled vocabularies receive dull-eyed and empty-faced stares (nod
to the Boss).

So, I'm getting the impression that on the enterprise level, the IA we here
on SIGIA-L know and love (some sort of human-centered way of structuring
information to enhance understanding and experience among humans RATHER THAN
a technocentric way of structuring data to help servers communicate) doesn't
seem to be well-understood...or perhaps that's just my view in this
quasi-governmental organization I work for.

Hopeless,

joe


--__--__--


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.asis.org/mailman/private/sigia-l/attachments/20030319/16812c17/attachment.html