2808Re: [TaxoCoP] Happy New Year Fellow Taxonomy Nerds!
- Jan 1, 2009Nick--really appreciate your response. In particular, thanks for the comment about "educate until we're blue in the face." I think this has something to do with certain utopian concepts about "collaboration" and of "librarianship" or what librarians "do/should do" that have been swept up in to discussions about not just the use of controlled vocabularies for categorizing/classifying (manually or semi-automatically), but the building, maintenance, and development of them to support seemingly endless, frequently pointless "requirements."
Stephanie--I'm just glad that the title of the prediction wasn't "Taxonomies AND Metadata are Dead!" The way I'm reading this CMS WATCH info dab is in the sense that a hierarchical structure, such as those known as taxonomies and, in particular, as defined by, say the applicable ANSI/NISO standards, are not, for the most part, going to be applicable to all personal and business information goals and requirements.
In other words, the notion of the "one size fits all" structures could well be on its way out, dead, "last nail in the coffin" in 2009, even though many thought, and have been stressing to the likes of CMS WATCH et al., that that was the case some time ago. Many in this group probably don't need CMS WATCH telling us certain things while many in this group appreciate it because any reinforcement of what we suspect is always grateful. We're all at different points on a trajectory.
However, I don't see the practice of taxonomy, in the sense of contextual analysis and the manual and semi-automatic application of a variety of metadata values--derived from various controlled vocabularies--to content in order to support a variety of "best practices" and requirements, as dying any time soon.
--- On Thu, 1/1/09, Nick Berry <infoglutton@...> wrote:
> From: Nick Berry <infoglutton@...>
> Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Happy New Year Fellow Taxonomy Nerds!
> To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 12:25 AM
> I see a long list of esteemed analysts responsible for this
> banal and
> shallow treatment of the concept of taxonomy. Quality
> taxonomies are not
> now and have never been about "single-hierarchy"
> - the primary aspect of the
> hallowed analysts' accusation that implies that
> taxonomies are overly rigid.
> Many of us have realized that we can educate until
> we're blue in the face,
> but as long as we continue to promote the use of the word
> "taxonomy," we are
> left in an awkward position, because the word has both
> denotative and
> connotative implications of hierarchy (parent/child,
> genus/species). A more accurate word for the information
> structures that
> most of us create is "ontology," which implies
> complex relationship types
> and the ability to create logical inferences based on the
> relationships among entities and elements that are modeled
> in this type of
> knowledge organization system.
> I think we've outgrown the term Taxonomy. Let's
> take the leap and call them
> Ontologies, not only to claim the space but also to silence
> the dunderheads
> like these guys (who are decent people, no doubt, just
> doing their
> journalistic duty by trying to sensationalize a
> nonsensational story).
> Happy new year to you too, Steph, and to all the good
> Ontologists out there.
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Stephanie Lemieux
> > On this December 31st, I'd like to wish all the
> members of the CoP a
> > happy new year on behalf of Seth Earley and all of
> Earley & Associates.
> > We have great fun managing this community and ensuring
> that we
> > taxonomy geeks have a place to discuss hot taxonomy
> topics with peers.
> > Here's to a new year filled with discovery,
> collaboration and mirth.
> > I also invite you all to read the CMS Watch
> predictions for 2009 -
> > check out #3: Taxonomies are dead. Long live metadata!
> > What do you think? Does 2009 signal the end for us
> taxonomy nerds?
> > Chime in with your response during the first week of
> January and we
> > will summarize the answers in our next blog post.
> > Thanks, and happy new year!
> > Stephanie Lemieux
> > Earley & Associates
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>