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

RE: [TaxoCoP] Classification of IS Content

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      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 2 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 15 , Dec 20, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 15 , Dec 26, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 15 , Dec 27, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 15 , Dec 27, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 15 , Dec 27, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 15 , Dec 27, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 15 , Dec 28, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 15 , Dec 28, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment

                                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.