Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Classification of IS Content

Expand Messages
  • Harry Ringwood
    Hi, I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification schema for the High-Value documents for our IS organisation. Would anyone have
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
      Hi,
      I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
      schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
      anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
      reference?

      Thanks,
      Harry
    • Bob "Mister" Rogers
      Harry, Given the subject area I d start with the records information managers (RIM) folks in your organization. However, are you sure you want to limit the
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006

        Harry,

         

        Given the subject area I’d start with the records information managers (RIM) folks in your organization.  However, are you sure you want to limit the scope to high value documents?  There is an evolving discipline called “information lifecycle management” that focuses on the value of information to the organization.  If you are interested I can point you to a white paper on ILM and storage service management at the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) website that covers these types of issues.  Don’t be put off by the “storage” label, the storage folks are getting hammered with governance requirements that are really business service intelligence issues.

         

        Also, you might look at the IT Governance Institute’s ValIT initiative (ITGI.org).  It isn’t directly applicable, but it is close.

         

        Bob "Mister" Rogers

        Chief Technology Officer

        Application Matrix, LLC

        Voice: (240) 632-9361

        Fax:     (301) 869-4822

        Email: mrrogers@...

        SMS:   2404017135@...

         

         

         

        From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Harry Ringwood
        Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:46 AM
        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [TaxoCoP] Classification of IS Content

         

        Hi,
        I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
        schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
        anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
        reference?

        Thanks,
        Harry

      • Torrie Hodgson
        Hi Harry, A while ago I did a fair amount of process documentation for an IS department, and we based much of that documentation on Britain s ITIL standard
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
          Hi Harry,
           
          A while ago I did a fair amount of process documentation for an IS department, and we based much of that documentation on Britain's ITIL standard (http://www.itil.co.uk/), and Microsoft's related MOF( http://www.microsoft.com/technet/solutionaccelerators/cits/mo/mof/default.mspx). Since these classify the usual scope of all IS services, they may be of use to you when creating your schema.
           
          Thanks,
          Torrie Hodgson, MLS
          Sakson & Taylor, an Aquent company

           
          On 12/20/06, Harry Ringwood <h_ringwood@...> wrote:

          Hi,
          I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
          schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
          anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
          reference?

          Thanks,
          Harry




          --
          Torrie Hodgson
          torriehodgson@...
        • Gail Wood
          Torrie, Is there any way that you can share your work? I have also been tasked with a similar project and we are also in the process of implementing ITIL. Our
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
            Torrie,
            Is there any way that you can share your work? I have also been tasked with a similar project and we are also in the process of implementing ITIL. Our KM and taxonomy efforts requires alignment with ITIL.
             
            Thanks so much,
            Gaoil


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Torrie Hodgson
            Sent: Dec 20, 2006 10:43 AM
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Classification of IS Content

            Hi Harry,
             
            A while ago I did a fair amount of process documentation for an IS department, and we based much of that documentation on Britain's ITIL standard (http://www.itil. co.uk/), and Microsoft's related MOF( http://www.microsof t.com/technet/ solutionaccelera tors/cits/ mo/mof/default. mspx). Since these classify the usual scope of all IS services, they may be of use to you when creating your schema.
             
            Thanks,
            Torrie Hodgson, MLS
            Sakson & Taylor, an Aquent company

             
            On 12/20/06, Harry Ringwood <h_ringwood@yahoo. co.uk> wrote:

            Hi,
            I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
            schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
            anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
            reference?

            Thanks,
            Harry




            --
            Torrie Hodgson
            torriehodgson@ gmail.com

            
            Gail
          • ed_jennings
            Hi Harry, There are 2 basic challenges with this activity. First, is the definition of High-Value . Second, is the multi-faceted document classification
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
              Hi Harry,

              There are 2 basic challenges with this activity. First, is the
              definition of "High-Value". Second, is the multi-faceted document
              classification system within the I.S. Organization. I am referring to
              documents generically as I.S. personnel may even want to classify
              blocks / modules of code. Let's break these items down separately.

              From a procedural point of view, I would make sure that you understand
              who the stakeholders are. A stakeholder is defined as someone who can
              influence or directly impact the approval or dis-approval of your
              work. This exercise can be like finding a rock. No matter which rock
              you bring back, the user says "no, this is the wrong rock". Once you
              understand who the stakeholders are, I would invite them to a meeting
              to define the scope of work, as well as the timetable and ask them at
              what stages they would like to be updated, and finally, who would like
              to be the representatives (1, 2, or 3 people) of the larger group that
              you can work with on a more frequent basis. They will end up being
              your biggest supporters within the group.

              Next, you have to define what the group means by "High-Value". This
              can mean anything from A) A certain job title in the document B) A
              department C) A date D) Keywords E) type of document F) other types
              of input you will receive from the stakeholders.

              Once you receive agreement on what High-Value is, you can create rules
              to identify High-Value. If you get the definition and the
              rules 'bought-off' by the stakeholders, you are more than half of the
              way there.

              The second part of this equation deals with multi-faceted
              classification for I.S. Documents. This would be organized in a
              taxonomy. I would begin by first learning how the I.S. Department
              classifys their documents at the highest level. This means if somone
              in the I.S. department was going to search for a document, what would
              be their first criteria for searching? They might tell you that it is
              the type of dicument (memo, change order request, white paper,
              requirements, etc) Once you find out how the I.S. department would
              logically search for such documents, then learn about the documents,
              you will be prepared to begin creating a taxonomy.

              While this sounds like a lot of upfront work before you even begin
              creating the taxonomy, you outcome for success will be higher, because
              you have the support of the group who will approve your work and
              methodology.

              Good Luck,
              Ed





              --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Ringwood" <h_ringwood@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hi,
              > I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted
              classification
              > schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
              > anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
              > reference?
              >
              > Thanks,
              > Harry
              >
            • Torrie Hodgson
              Hi Gail, I m afraid I can t send you a copy of any of the specific things I did. I am operating under a non-disclosure agreement with that particular customer.
              Message 6 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
                Hi Gail,
                 
                I'm afraid I can't send you a copy of any of the specific things I did. I am operating under a non-disclosure agreement with that particular customer.
                 
                I can let you know how I approached the project in general. Fortunately, I had a highly position champion to exert friendly downward pressure in the organization along with a looming Sarbanes-Oxley audit for additional motivation.
                 
                First, I connected with the managers/stakeholders who were tasked with assigning/evaluating the workers who followed the processes and procedures. I also made special note of any stakeholders who had experience with MOF/ITIL and/or were part of network security.
                 
                I then made up some straw-man swimlane flowcharts of what I guessed were the 30,000 overview processes for each of the key SMFs in each MOF quadrant. I then scheduled 30-minute working meetings with the appropriate stakeholders/owners of specific processes to determine where their actual process differed and if they felt their current process needed improvement.
                 
                Once we had a start on decent process flows, I worked with the security guys to see that their controls were addressed and then we negotiated a common process document template that would suit the needs of both groups.
                 
                Eventually, we created an online process documentation repository which left the door open for future single sourcing as a new-hire training, knowledge base repository, and auditor checklist/testing tracking utility. We also had the IS guys create a regular process and process documentation review cycle, and as far as I know they are still updating and maintaining their documentation to reflect their current practices.
                 
                I hope this helps a little bit. Sorry I can't be more specific.
                 
                Thanks,
                Torrie Hodgson :)

                 
                On 12/20/06, Gail Wood <gsamoore@...> wrote:

                Torrie,
                Is there any way that you can share your work? I have also been tasked with a similar project and we are also in the process of implementing ITIL. Our KM and taxonomy efforts requires alignment with ITIL.
                 
                Thanks so much,
                Gaoil


                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Torrie Hodgson
                Sent: Dec 20, 2006 10:43 AM
                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Classification of IS Content

                Hi Harry,
                 
                A while ago I did a fair amount of process documentation for an IS department, and we based much of that documentation on Britain's ITIL standard ( http://www.itil.co.uk/), and Microsoft's related MOF( http://www.microsoft.com/technet/solutionaccelerators/cits/mo/mof/default.mspx). Since these classify the usual scope of all IS services, they may be of use to you when creating your schema.
                 
                Thanks,
                Torrie Hodgson, MLS
                Sakson & Taylor, an Aquent company

                 
                On 12/20/06, Harry Ringwood <h_ringwood@... > wrote:

                Hi,
                I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
                schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
                anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
                reference?

                Thanks,
                Harry




                --
                Torrie Hodgson
                torriehodgson@...

                Gail




                --
                Torrie Hodgson
                torriehodgson@...
              • Torrie Hodgson
                Whoops! That was not 30,000 overview processes. That was meant to be 30,000-foot overview processes, as in broad, high-level processes. Torrie :) ... --
                Message 7 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
                  Whoops! That was not 30,000 overview processes. That was meant to be "30,000-foot overview processes," as in broad, high-level processes.
                   
                  Torrie :)

                   
                  On 12/20/06, Torrie Hodgson <torriehodgson@...> wrote:
                  Hi Gail,
                   
                  I'm afraid I can't send you a copy of any of the specific things I did. I am operating under a non-disclosure agreement with that particular customer.
                   
                  I can let you know how I approached the project in general. Fortunately, I had a highly position champion to exert friendly downward pressure in the organization along with a looming Sarbanes-Oxley audit for additional motivation.
                   
                  First, I connected with the managers/stakeholders who were tasked with assigning/evaluating the workers who followed the processes and procedures. I also made special note of any stakeholders who had experience with MOF/ITIL and/or were part of network security.
                   
                  I then made up some straw-man swimlane flowcharts of what I guessed were the 30,000 overview processes for each of the key SMFs in each MOF quadrant. I then scheduled 30-minute working meetings with the appropriate stakeholders/owners of specific processes to determine where their actual process differed and if they felt their current process needed improvement.
                   
                  Once we had a start on decent process flows, I worked with the security guys to see that their controls were addressed and then we negotiated a common process document template that would suit the needs of both groups.
                   
                  Eventually, we created an online process documentation repository which left the door open for future single sourcing as a new-hire training, knowledge base repository, and auditor checklist/testing tracking utility. We also had the IS guys create a regular process and process documentation review cycle, and as far as I know they are still updating and maintaining their documentation to reflect their current practices.
                   
                  I hope this helps a little bit. Sorry I can't be more specific.
                   
                  Thanks,
                  Torrie Hodgson :)

                   
                  On 12/20/06, Gail Wood <gsamoore@... > wrote:

                  Torrie,
                  Is there any way that you can share your work? I have also been tasked with a similar project and we are also in the process of implementing ITIL. Our KM and taxonomy efforts requires alignment with ITIL.
                   
                  Thanks so much,
                  Gaoil


                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Torrie Hodgson
                  Sent: Dec 20, 2006 10:43 AM
                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Classification of IS Content

                  Hi Harry,
                   
                  A while ago I did a fair amount of process documentation for an IS department, and we based much of that documentation on Britain's ITIL standard ( http://www.itil.co.uk/), and Microsoft's related MOF( http://www.microsoft.com/technet/solutionaccelerators/cits/mo/mof/default.mspx). Since these classify the usual scope of all IS services, they may be of use to you when creating your schema.
                   
                  Thanks,
                  Torrie Hodgson, MLS
                  Sakson & Taylor, an Aquent company

                   
                  On 12/20/06, Harry Ringwood <h_ringwood@... > wrote:

                  Hi,
                  I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
                  schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
                  anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
                  reference?

                  Thanks,
                  Harry




                  --
                  Torrie Hodgson
                  torriehodgson@...

                  Gail




                  --
                  Torrie Hodgson
                  torriehodgson@...



                  --
                  Torrie Hodgson
                  torriehodgson@...
                • Patrick Lambe Straits Knowledge SG
                  Hi Harry Some good comments so far, in terms of leveraging pre-existing standardised taxonomies, and involving stakeholders. You could also use an information
                  Message 8 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
                    Hi Harry
                     
                    Some good comments so far, in terms of leveraging pre-existing standardised taxonomies, and involving stakeholders. 
                     
                    You could also use an information audit technique to map the principal information assets associated with each of your organisation's key business activities. Do it dept by dept. Then get each workgroup to look at other peoples' maps, and indicate which information assets would also be useful to them - this process starts to indicate the high value items. Use the vocabulary for how they describe their information assets in the audit to derive the vocabulary for the taxonomy - very likely you'll need to negotiate a common standard where you have variation.
                     
                    My new book "Organising Knowledge" (coming out in January) describes this process in greater depth
                    http://www.greenchameleon.com/gc/pubs/
                     
                     
                    Good luck!
                     
                    Patrick
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:46 PM
                    Subject: [TaxoCoP] Classification of IS Content

                    Hi,
                    I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
                    schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
                    anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
                    reference?

                    Thanks,
                    Harry

                  • Frank
                    Hello Harry, The first thing for you to remember is that there really is no right answer in this space. There will always be a critic. However, it will be
                    Message 9 of 15 , Dec 26, 2006
                      Hello Harry,

                      The first thing for you to remember is that there really is no right
                      answer in this space. There will always be a critic. However, it
                      will be imperative for you to understand that most answers will be
                      wrong, since the universe of Information Management is very
                      complicated and most solutions tend to oversimply and therefore leave
                      much to be desired. I've listed a few things for you to consider,
                      while on your search for your solution. Hopefully, you will find them
                      useful...

                      - Your highest level categories will "always" align most effectively
                      with your business' critical operational processes. The processes
                      that fall in this category, unfortunately, are not easy to identify,
                      unless you've been through it before, because they're spread over many
                      different industry frameworks (RUP, SDLC, PLC, MSF, MOF, ITIL, COBIT,
                      SOX, SAS70, etc.). If you wish to jump start this, you can use our
                      own high level categorization, found at:
                      http://www.TraverseIT.com/it_ops.html. NOTE: The categories listed at
                      this link do not represent the master list of operational processes
                      but, rather, just the list we've implemented ourselves and have found
                      to be "solidly repeatable" in every firm we implement, within.

                      - Your lower level categories will usually be subtypes of the higher
                      level categories.

                      - Generic categorizations are always safer than explicit
                      categorizations. The list of specific categorizations is infinit. If
                      you try and map infinity into your solution, you will follow down the
                      path of far too many others that have tried and failed.

                      - Avoid mappings that map directly to "organizations" and other things
                      that are considered to be "specific" but have a very high probability
                      of changing. Things like organizations have a high probability of
                      disappearing, splitting, being renamed, etc. Avoid the trap of using
                      the names of organizations, groups, and enterprises in your model.

                      - Avoid hard-coding your mappings, as changing them will be very
                      difficult, at a later time.

                      - Understand that your data model/structure is critical to success.
                      Understanding what you can or can't do with each and every data
                      structure is absolutely critical. For example, things like
                      taxonomixal trees usually break down quickly, as they try to
                      oversimply the complex world of Information Management & Science and,
                      by default, limit what you can do with your information. Graphs,
                      while far more flexible and simple to work with, are not for the
                      average person to design and engineer, because the upfront investment
                      is huge and requires a large pool of experts at every level of highly
                      distributed system design.

                      - Understand that what is important to "you" is going to be wrong,
                      since everyone else has what is important to "them". Your way around
                      this is to use categorizations that are important to the "enterprise",
                      since the higher good is always that of the enterprise.

                      - Consider that "document" means many things to many people and that
                      if you create a solution that only facilitates a solution for
                      traditional documents (such as MS Office documents) you will instantly
                      limit the usability of your solution for other people.

                      - Understand that in an enterprise a "Community of Practice" (CoP) is
                      really a team or a "Team Space" and that how CoPs work in an
                      enterprise that exists to make and spend money is very different than
                      how a CoP works outside of such an enterprise, such as this very CoP
                      we're involved in. NOTE: Teams, by nature, build silos (for many
                      reasons) that make information sharing very difficult. Breaking down
                      these silos is very difficult. Trying to share information and make
                      these silos interact, across each other, is virtually impossible if
                      you use traditional methodologies.

                      - Understand that each and every Team Space (silo) most likely has its
                      own solution for managing its critical information, whether it be to
                      use a tool they already have in place, a file share that they use for
                      storing information, etc. What one team does is usually different
                      than what any other team does, even if they do use the same tools
                      and/or technologies. These "differences" are the incompatibilities
                      that are virtually insurmountable if you don't have the backing of
                      your leaders to get them to abandon what they use, today, in favor of
                      a more strategic solution.

                      - Consider not reinventing the wheel. Many others have gone through
                      what you're doing. It might be worthwhile to simply find what they've
                      done and quickly reuse it. Spending too much time on something that
                      will most likely be limited and possibly wrong, from the start, is
                      something you may want to avoid. In a case like this it is always
                      important to understand that there are experts that do what you're
                      trying to do for a living. You may want to consider engaging with
                      them for help.

                      - If you need a tool to support what you're doing, consider that
                      building one is a huge endeavor and that if you attempt to do it,
                      yourself, you will most likely fall very short of your intended mark.
                      You may want to consider buying a tool that has already done what
                      you're asking for. A proper Information Management System has already
                      gone to the trouble of breaking down all of the categories and
                      building usable features around all of it.

                      - Understand that your greatest obstacle is not your classification of
                      your information... or how you model it... or what tool you use... but
                      "Change". Most people don't like change and will fight it, at all cost.

                      Anyhow, I hope this information helps.

                      Best Regards,

                      Frank Guerino
                      CEO & Founder
                      TraverseIT
                      On-Demand Knowledge Management
                      Frank.Guerino@...
                      http://www.TraverseIT.com


                      --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Ringwood" <h_ringwood@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi,
                      > I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
                      > schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation. Would
                      > anyone have some suggestions as to where to start or any points of
                      > reference?
                      >
                      > Thanks,
                      > Harry
                      >
                    • David Eddy
                      Harry - ... Is source code (e.g. the programming instructions written in software language such as COBOL, Java, C, JCL, SQL, Basic, .NET, PHP, Javascript,
                      Message 10 of 15 , Dec 27, 2006
                        Harry -

                        >
                        > I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted classification
                        > schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation.
                        >

                        Is source code (e.g. the programming instructions written in software language
                        such as COBOL, Java, C, JCL, SQL, Basic, .NET, PHP, Javascript, HTML, etc.)
                        considered to be a "document?"

                        - David
                      • ed_jennings
                        In answer to your question of whether code is considered a high-value document? My answer would be no. Code is typically maintained in Software Libraries .
                        Message 11 of 15 , Dec 27, 2006
                          In answer to your question of whether code is considered a high-value
                          document? My answer would be no. Code is typically maintained
                          in "Software Libraries". Unless you were specifically asked to
                          maintain the software libraries, code resides outside of documents.
                          Within software libraries, there are re-usable building blsocks of
                          code. For example, a print routine is something that many
                          programmers use. They want to be able to find the re-usable print
                          code in the software library. The same goes for test code which is
                          used to test the programs for stability and errors.

                          I think a question which arises out of this discussion is the subject
                          of programming documentation. Is program documentation considered a
                          document? Yes. The issue is whether the programming documentation
                          is kept in the software libraries, as part of the comment section of
                          the program code iteslf, or is it kept somewhere else? This is a
                          company by comapny decision. If it is kept 'somewhere else', that
                          might be part of your responsibility. That is a question I would ask
                          the I.T. Department.

                          Best regards,
                          Ed





                          --- In TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com, "David Eddy" <dbe@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Harry -
                          >
                          > >
                          > > I have been tasked with the creation of a multi-faceted
                          classification
                          > > schema for the 'High-Value' documents for our IS organisation.
                          > >
                          >
                          > Is source code (e.g. the programming instructions written in
                          software language
                          > such as COBOL, Java, C, JCL, SQL, Basic, .NET, PHP, Javascript,
                          HTML, etc.)
                          > considered to be a "document?"
                          >
                          > - David
                          >
                        • David Eddy
                          Ed - ... Let me see if I can paraphrase this... electrons (software) are not documents. Ink on paper is (are?) documents which are valuable. If the sofware
                          Message 12 of 15 , Dec 27, 2006
                            Ed -

                            >
                            > Unless you were specifically asked to
                            > maintain the software libraries, code resides outside of documents.
                            >

                            Let me see if I can paraphrase this...
                            electrons (software) are not documents.

                            Ink on paper is (are?) documents which are valuable.


                            If the sofware electrons were printed would they then become
                            documents & therefore valuable?

                            Do I have that right?

                            - David
                          • Ed Jennings
                            David, That is my take and I have been around a lot of electrons. Good summary, Ed David Eddy wrote: Ed - ... Let me see if I can paraphrase
                            Message 13 of 15 , Dec 27, 2006
                              David,
                               
                              That is my take and I have been around a lot of electrons.
                               
                              Good summary,
                               
                              Ed
                               


                              David Eddy <dbe@...> wrote:
                              Ed -

                              >
                              > Unless you were specifically asked to
                              > maintain the software libraries, code resides outside of documents.
                              >

                              Let me see if I can paraphrase this...
                              electrons (software) are not documents.

                              Ink on paper is (are?) documents which are valuable.

                              If the sofware electrons were printed would they then become
                              documents & therefore valuable?

                              Do I have that right?

                              - David


                            • David Eddy
                              Ed - Actually I was being sarcastic. Let me be significantly more pointed here in my ridicule of this alleged distinction between electrons & ink+paper
                              Message 14 of 15 , Dec 28, 2006
                                Ed -

                                Actually I was being sarcastic.

                                Let me be significantly more pointed here in my ridicule of this
                                alleged distinction between electrons & ink+paper "value"...

                                When software is transformed from worthless electrons to a
                                combination of carbon-black & dead trees, then it becomes
                                a "valuable document?"

                                Surely you jest.

                                It's been my experience with dead tree documents & software
                                that the electron form trumps the dead tree format every time.

                                Dead trees are great for books & such, but TERRIBLE for software.


                                While I do totally & formally acknowledge that my view is distinctly
                                in the minority in this (non) debate, I would suggest that the physical
                                document side of the table better wake up to the fact that electron
                                based software is in fact an incredibly valuable document. Organizations
                                certainly pump plenty of money into these non-document electrons.



                                I just wish I could post to the list the 1970s Charles Adams cartoon of
                                the grieving widow & two small children standing over a fresh grave.

                                A man asks... "Excuse me Ma'am... I know this is a bad time... but did
                                he ever mention 'source code'?"


                                DULY NOTE: The point I'm trying to make is that without question,
                                "document management" (a professional discipline I'd guess that's at
                                least as old as the Egyptian Pyramids... 5,000+ years old) has a lot
                                to offer to the world of software whose age is measured in a few
                                decades.

                                I'd like to see software INCLUDED—rather than excluded—in the
                                discussion on how to manage valuable documents. Software is without
                                question the junior craft (notice I do not use the word "profession") &
                                has a LOT to learn from the senior guild.

                                - David

                                >
                                > David,
                                >
                                > That is my take and I have been around a lot of electrons.
                                >
                                > Good summary,
                                >
                                > >
                                > > Unless you were specifically asked to
                                > > maintain the software libraries, code resides outside of documents.
                                > >
                                >
                                > Let me see if I can paraphrase this...
                                > electrons (software) are not documents.
                                >
                                > Ink on paper is (are?) documents which are valuable.
                                >
                                > If the sofware electrons were printed would they then become
                                > documents & therefore valuable?
                                >
                                > Do I have that right?
                                >
                                > - David
                                >
                              • Seth Earley
                                While this is an interesting discussion, before we go down too far on this path, let me remind the list of a couple of points of protocol: * Our intent is to
                                Message 15 of 15 , Dec 28, 2006

                                  While this is an interesting discussion, before we go down too far on this path, let me remind the list of a couple of points of protocol:

                                   

                                  • Our intent is to keep discussions focused on experiences and practical approaches to solving problems. 
                                  • Topics center around taxonomy, content management, knowledge management and search
                                  • Commercial messages are kept to a minimum and focus on things that are of direct interest to members or that members are actively seeking information on
                                  • Posts should be kept short and to the point
                                  • Exchanges of opinions on various topics should be made off list
                                  • Since sarcasm or humor is hard to interpret in messages, try to keep it minimal or indicate intent with an icon or label

                                   

                                  Thanks

                                   

                                  Seth :-)  (smiley indicating light tone of message ;-)) 
                                    

                                  Seth Earley

                                  TaxoCoP founder   

                                  Earley & Associates, Inc

                                  781-444-0287

                                  781-820-8080 cell


                                  David wrote:

                                  Ed -

                                  Actually I was being sarcastic.

                                  Let me be significantly more pointed here in my ridicule of this
                                  alleged distinction between electrons & ink+paper "value"...

                                  When software is transformed from worthless electrons to a
                                  combination of carbon-black & dead trees, then it becomes
                                  a "valuable document?"

                                  Surely you jest.
                                  …..  

                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.