[Sigia-l] Sigia-l Digest, Vol 35, Issue 29

Mon Aug 27 00:12:18 EDT 2007

As far as I am concerned, navigation allows the user
to access the 'ofness' and 'aboutness' of a document
by applying classification and giving subject
description to document; while taxonomy supports more
than navigation, e.g. processing, workflow,
activities, etc., that shall be encapsulated by
applications, and secured from endusers.

Cheers,

Amanda Xu

--- sigia-l-request at asis.org wrote:

> Send Sigia-l mailing list submissions to
> 	sigia-l at asis.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 	http://mail.asis.org/mailman/listinfo/sigia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	sigia-l-request at asis.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	sigia-l-owner at asis.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Sigia-l digest..."
> 
> 
> Searchable list archive:  
> http://www.info-arch.org/lists/sigia-l/
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: Taxonomies & Navigation (Ziya Oz)
>    2. Any experience using Liferay to implement a
> site? (J. M. Hatfield)
>    3. Re: Taxonomies & Navigation (Seth Earley)
>    4. Re: [Iai-Members] Tafiti - Silverlit search
> (marianne)
>    5. Sorry, 404 (Ziya Oz)
>    6. Can Usability get a CUE? (Ziya Oz)
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:25:54 -0400
> From: Ziya Oz <listera at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Taxonomies & Navigation
> To: SIGIA-L <sigia-l at asis.org>
> Message-ID: <C2F57BF2.252D4%listera at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="US-ASCII"
> 
> Seth Earley:
>  
> > Another way to think is that navigation is an
> access structure, not a
> > classification structure.  It is specific to
> content. We are navigating to
> > content, therefore it is really an index.  A
> taxonomy is independent of
> > content - it is an abstraction.  The "is-ness" of
> a thing.  This is an
> > Analyst Report, this is a White Paper, etc.
> 
> Yes, this is how things have been, not necessarily
> how they might be in the
> future: the nature of 'content' can/will change from
> document-centric to
> data-centric.
> 
> I think I talked about this example some time ago:
> in a project I'm
> currently working on, there's a large SharePoint
> document DB that's doubled
> to 150 GB in just a few months I have been
> considering it. Why? Because the
> company is doc-centric and essentially captures
> every imaginable data,
> analysis, communication, documentation, etc., in a
> 'document' of one sort or
> another. Some of these docs are live, most are
> 'frozen'. But docs keep
> growing. Heck, almost at a compounding rate. This is
> not an unusual
> situation in companies with a high rate of info/data
> circulation.
> 
> So the 'classic'' approaches to the problem have
> been towards making the
> access and navigation of this exploding reservoir of
> docs more 'manageable'.
> Soon, however, diminishing returns begins to rear
> its ugly head.
> 
> The drastic and scalable solution lies in a totally
> different direction:
> eliminating 'documents' altogether by giving access
> to live, real-time
> 'views' of the data, customized just-in-time for
> specific uses and users.
> Multi-dimensional metadata can allow the architect
> to shape the 'view' in
> amazing ways, not possible with frozen docs, thereby
> eliminating the need
> for users to actually 'navigate'. Taxonomy dissolves
> into multi-dimensional
> (not faceted) metadata and rarely needs to be
> exposed to the user. Of
> course, there's a rules engine running in the
> background, orchestrating the
> whole thing.
> 
> No docs: not much to store, version, maintain,
> archive, purge, etc. And no
> formal navigation, either.
> 
> This gets complicated, if one's not used to dealing
> at this level of
> abstraction and integration, but the power therein
> is undeniable. I intend
> to write about it in detail in a blog or something,
> one of these months.
> 
> Ziya
> Nullius in Verba 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:07:44 -0700
> From: "J. M. Hatfield" <hatfield.jm at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Sigia-l] Any experience using Liferay to
> implement a site?
> To: sigia-l at asis.org
> Message-ID:
> 
>
<c6e6f5c30708251007u61a0e8d6y465e102ed9b98e16 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Has anyone had any experience developing a UI that
> works with with Liferay,
> an open source portal platform?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jennifer Hatfield
> 
> QUALCOMM, Inc.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:27:24 -0400
> From: "Seth Earley" <seth at earley.com>
> Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Taxonomies & Navigation
> To: "'Ziya Oz'" <listera at earthlink.net>, "'SIGIA-L'"
> 	<sigia-l at asis.org>
> Message-ID:
> <003701c7e73d$336f6c30$2f01a8c0 at SethLaptop>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Interesting.  I can see that kind of evolution
> taking place.  We're starting
> to see more of that with content assembly and
> complex content object models.
> The notion of the "document" disappears.  
> 
> Seth 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sigia-l-bounces at asis.org
> [mailto:sigia-l-bounces at asis.org] On Behalf
> Of Ziya Oz
> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 6:26 AM
> To: SIGIA-L
> Subject: Re: [Sigia-l] Taxonomies & Navigation
> 
> Seth Earley:
>  
> > Another way to think is that navigation is an
> access structure, not a
> > classification structure.  It is specific to
> content. We are navigating to
> > content, therefore it is really an index.  A
> taxonomy is independent of
> > content - it is an abstraction.  The "is-ness" of
> a thing.  This is an
> > Analyst Report, this is a White Paper, etc.
> 
> Yes, this is how things have been, not necessarily
> how they might be in the
> future: the nature of 'content' can/will change from
> document-centric to
> data-centric.
> 
> I think I talked about this example some time ago:
> in a project I'm
> currently working on, there's a large SharePoint
> document DB that's doubled
> to 150 GB in just a few months I have been
> considering it. Why? Because the
> company is doc-centric and essentially captures
> every imaginable data,
> analysis, communication, documentation, etc., in a
> 'document' of one sort or
> 
=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC