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

Re: [TaxoCoP] Re: joining taxoCoP for research purposes.

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Hannon
    My experience is that it is a mix of build vs. buy. It also depends on what the purpose of the taxonomy is. You need to do an analysis of your content/data in
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 26, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      My experience is that it is a mix of build vs. buy. It also depends on what the purpose of the taxonomy is. You need to do an analysis of your content/data in order to make an initial determination.
       
      Templates can be very helpful in areas such as Human Resources. Additionally, industries such as Pharma and BioTech can benefit from using MESH as a jump-off point or their internal R&D taxonomies. Even if you buy, it is rare that you will use it "out of the box". You will most probably need to customize it for your organization's particular needs.
       
      Purchasing taxonomies can be costly and you need to measure that against the development time/cost of doing it yourself.
       
      Many companies are letting their library staff go, not realizing that they have useful resources already in their midst.
       
      When there aren't internal resources, the consulting company should leave you with a maintenance plan and training. Taxonomies are NOT an event. They need to be maintained and you need to have a plan in place to do that. Again, whoever works with you to do that needs to leave you with a plan and knowledge so that you can do it successfully.
       
      On a side note, Rita, I was a customer of your information a few years ago on a conference and walked away with a lot of great information!
       
      Kevin Hannon
      Principal and Founder
      InfoCurators, LLC
      201-913-8108
      khannon@...
      www.infocurators.com
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Knox,Rita
      Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:08 PM
      Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re: joining taxoCoP for research purposes.

      thanks for the welcome and your questions, Seth.
       
      regarding taxonomies: are more companies buying rather than building their own taxonomies? If they do buy them, do they find the taxonomies need (a lot of) modification to meet their needs? Do they mostly have internal resources (e.g., library scientists) to do the work, or contract with 3rd parties (like Earley and assocs!) to do the work? If 3rd party, is it typical to have internal resources work with the consulting company to learn development and maintenance skills?
       
      regarding "other things": content analytics -- interested in how "analytics" can be categorized (e.g., social analysis, expertise location), how processes can be serialized to answer specific questions, and how UIMA (unstructured information management architecture) will/will not play in this (OASIS is paying attention to this).
       
      Extensible Markup Language (XML) -- many issues for a long time.
       
      Seth: "(Not sure if you are acquainted with Carol Rozwell at Gartner. She is a
      long time colleague from the industry.)

      Seth Earley
       
      absolutely know Carol. will let her know you asked!
       
      rgds.
       
      -- rita
       

      Rita E. Knox, Ph.D. | VP & Research Director | Information Infrastructure | Gartner

      Office: +1 818 785 5111 | Inquiry: +1 203 316 1200 | www.gartner. com | inquiry@gartner. com

       

    • Knox,Rita
      thanks for the answers, Seth. appreciate your taking the time. -- rita Rita E. Knox, Ph.D. | VP & Research Director | Information Infrastructure | Gartner
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 27, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        thanks for the answers, Seth. appreciate your taking the time. -- rita
         

        Rita E. Knox, Ph.D. | VP & Research Director | Information Infrastructure | Gartner

        Office: +1 818 785 5111 | Inquiry: +1 203 316 1200 | www.gartner.com | inquiry@...

        cid:image001.gif@01C74142.78DB1860

         
      • Keipat Patkei
        My experience is very similar to Kevin s. I have worked in situations where I was so very glad to have the luxury of an out of the box taxonomy at my
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 29, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          My experience is very similar to Kevin's.  I have worked in situations where I was so very glad to have the "luxury" of an out of the box taxonomy at my disposal.  I also know of a number of projects that had no other choice, in terms of available resources, than to use a pre-built taxonomy or thesaurus in order to move forward/meet deadlines. 
           
          However, in my experience, a taxonomy, whether it's out of the box or built to spec, is never a fait acommpli and must always be revisited/revised/extended, etc.  I've also known of situations where taxonomies built from scratch wound up being totally inappropriate for a given situation "down the road" because initial biases and warrants, influencing the build, later changed. 
           
          I think this is one of the hardest points to get across to stakeholders who have little to no experience building or deploying a taxonomy, or any other controlled vocabulary for that matter: It IS information management and the management process doesn't stop with just one build or deployment.
           
          Just my two cents.  Thanks.
           
          Keith DeWeese

          Kevin Hannon <khannon@...> wrote:
          My experience is that it is a mix of build vs. buy. It also depends on what the purpose of the taxonomy is. You need to do an analysis of your content/data in order to make an initial determination.
           
          Templates can be very helpful in areas such as Human Resources. Additionally, industries such as Pharma and BioTech can benefit from using MESH as a jump-off point or their internal R&D taxonomies. Even if you buy, it is rare that you will use it "out of the box". You will most probably need to customize it for your organization' s particular needs.
           
          Purchasing taxonomies can be costly and you need to measure that against the development time/cost of doing it yourself.
           
          Many companies are letting their library staff go, not realizing that they have useful resources already in their midst.
           
          When there aren't internal resources, the consulting company should leave you with a maintenance plan and training. Taxonomies are NOT an event. They need to be maintained and you need to have a plan in place to do that. Again, whoever works with you to do that needs to leave you with a plan and knowledge so that you can do it successfully.
           
          On a side note, Rita, I was a customer of your information a few years ago on a conference and walked away with a lot of great information!
           
          Kevin Hannon
          Principal and Founder
          InfoCurators, LLC
          201-913-8108
          khannon@infocurator s.com
          www.infocurators. com
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Knox,Rita
          Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:08 PM
          Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re: joining taxoCoP for research purposes.

          thanks for the welcome and your questions, Seth.
           
          regarding taxonomies: are more companies buying rather than building their own taxonomies? If they do buy them, do they find the taxonomies need (a lot of) modification to meet their needs? Do they mostly have internal resources (e.g., library scientists) to do the work, or contract with 3rd parties (like Earley and assocs!) to do the work? If 3rd party, is it typical to have internal resources work with the consulting company to learn development and maintenance skills?
           
          regarding "other things": content analytics -- interested in how "analytics" can be categorized (e.g., social analysis, expertise location), how processes can be serialized to answer specific questions, and how UIMA (unstructured information management architecture) will/will not play in this (OASIS is paying attention to this).
           
          Extensible Markup Language (XML) -- many issues for a long time.
           
          Seth: "(Not sure if you are acquainted with Carol Rozwell at Gartner. She is a
          long time colleague from the industry.)

          Seth Earley
           
          absolutely know Carol. will let her know you asked!
           
          rgds.
           
          -- rita
           
          Rita E. Knox, Ph.D. | VP & Research Director | Information Infrastructure | Gartner
          Office: +1 818 785 5111 | Inquiry: +1 203 316 1200 | www.gartner. com | inquiry@gartner. com
           


          Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

        • Karin Schneider
          ..and I ll be one of the first folks to read your article ;-) I have a simple personal guiding principle: leverage existing taxonomies where you can and only
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment


            ..and I'll be one of the first folks to read your article ;-)

            I have a simple personal guiding principle: leverage existing taxonomies where you can and only build (or modify) where absolutely necessary. Standard organizations have clever and dedicated resources that do a wonderful job - why would I attempt doing it myself and believe I could do it better :-) ?

            Working in a highly regulated environment (pharma) we have several areas where the MAA, FDA etc. dictate what authoritative sources we have to use for e.g. metadata values and even the type of metadata itself. And of course the various authorities don't always ask for the same standards. Though this may sound burdensome - and sometimes it is - compliance can be your best friend to get things done.

            Web navigation taxonomies are on the simple end of the spectrum. We design them flat and simple but tailored to the content and site intend.

            I do not believe in 'librarians' designing taxonomies for an organization. I believe in librarians guiding business SME's in the proper design of a business process or purpose oriented taxonomy and working with a DBA/technical lead to properly implement it. It needs all three skill sets to be successful.

            I would love to hear from folks that outsource taxonomy development/maintenance (not the web page navigation type though) and how that is working for them.

            Specifically, anyone that has experience with Intellisophic?

            UIMA and Analytics deserves it's own discussion thread. Any takers for a kick-off message? :-)

            Regards,

            Karin

             

             


             


            Von: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
            Gesendet: 26.01.07 21:57:29
            An:
            Betreff: RE: [TaxoCoP] Re: joining taxoCoP for research purposes.

            Good questions… We could write an article(or research report ;-) ) about this topic. 

            Are more companies buying rather than building their own taxonomies? Dothey find the taxonomies need modification to meet their needs?

            In my experience, organizations can’treally purchase taxonomy that is directly useful for them withoutmodification.  Purchased taxonomies are a starting point in some cases,but may be too large to be useful.  Sometimes the paring down of a taxocan be as much work as building them up from existing content and termsources.  In the latter case, the taxo will likely be more focused andappropriate. 

            Do they mostly have internal resources (e.g., library scientists) to dothe work?  

            This varies widely.  In some cases ifthere is an in house librarian, they may take responsibility for thetaxonomy.  However, this is best handled by a cross functional team thatincludes usability people, IT, business line representation as well as someonewell versed in categorization and library science. 

            If 3rd party, is it typical to have internal resources work with theconsulting company to learn development and maintenance skills?

            Yes, this is necessary if there is to becontinuity and maintenance of the taxonomy.  Most savvy organizations willbudget for this.  Not devoting internal resources to work side by sidewith outside people will negatively impact the long term viability of thetaxonomy. 

            I actually have to run to a meeting. Anyone else want to take a stab at this or Rita’s other questions?

            Seth
                    
            Seth Earley 
            Earley & Associates, Inc 
            781-444-0287 
            781-820-8080 cell
             

            From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com [mailto: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com ] On Behalf Of Knox,Rita
            Sent: Thursday, January 25, 20075:09 PM
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
            Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re: joiningtaxoCoP for research purposes.

            thanks for the welcome and your questions, Seth.

            regarding taxonomies: are more companies buying rather than building theirown taxonomies? If they do buy them, do they find the taxonomies need (a lotof) modification to meet their needs? Do they mostly have internalresources (e.g., library scientists) to do the work, or contract with 3rdparties (like Earley and assocs!) to do the work? If 3rd party, is it typicalto have internal resources work with the consulting company to learn developmentand maintenance skills?

            regarding "other things": content analytics -- interested in how"analytics" can be categorized (e.g., social analysis, expertiselocation), how processes can be serialized to answer specific questions,and how UIMA (unstructured information management architecture) will/will notplay in this (OASIS is paying attention to this).

            Extensible Markup Language (XML) -- many issues for a long time.

            Seth: "(Not sure if you are acquainted with CarolRozwell at Gartner. She is a
            long time colleague from the industry.)

            Seth Earley

            absolutely know Carol. will let her know you asked!

            rgds.

            -- rita

            Rita E. Knox, Ph.D. | VP & Research Director| Information Infrastructure | Gartner

            Office:+1 818 785 5111 | Inquiry: +1 203 316 1200 | www.gartner. com| inquiry@gartner. com


            -- 
            Karin


            Viren-Scan für Ihren PC! Jetzt für jeden. Sofort, online und kostenlos.   
            Gleich testen! http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/freescan/?mc=022222  
          • Frank Guerino
            Hello Karin, I can¡¦t agree with you more about leveraging what others have done before you. As an IT leader, I learned something very important very late
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Re: [TaxoCoP] Re: joining taxoCoP for research purposes. Hello Karin,

              I can’t agree with you more about leveraging what others have done before you.  As an IT leader, I learned something very important very late in my career, something that should have been taught to me far earlier but no school seems to impress on their students, and that’s the simple fact that the majority of IT is wasted on re-inventing and/or re-implementing the same wheels over and over again.  What’s worse is the fact that every minute you spend trying to solve a problem that has nothing to do with your enterprise’s core business is a direct drain on revenue and/or profitability.  So, to take specific example such as enterprise search (one of many you can choose from): if your vertical business is Insurance, Education, Finance, Automotive, Retail, etc. and you spend any time, money, or energy at all on trying to solve the “enterprise search” problem, you’re doing work that outside experts are already doing better than you and work that goes directly against the grain of your core business.  What’s worse is that because your enterprise’s core business is not IT, it means that your enterprise’s core competency is also not IT.  This means that letting your internal IT staff try to solve things that are not your core competency will, more often than not, leave you with highly limited, incomplete, inflexible, and expensive to maintain solutions.

              Can’t tell you how many enterprises we walk into that have created a rat’s nest of solutions that are all stitched together in some ugly way.  Unfortunately, the biggest problem is the fact that once that stitching is too tight and large, the enterprise is “stuck”.  It becomes too expensive to move forward, too expensive to maintain, and too expensive to invest to get out of it.  Very sad...

              Anyhow, I hope this helps.

              Best Regards,

              Frank Guerino
              CEO & Founder
              TraverseIT
              http://www.TraverseIT.com



              On 2/3/07 12:12 AM, "Karin Schneider" <kschnei1@...> wrote:


               
               


              ..and I'll be one of the first folks to read your article ;-)

              I have a simple personal guiding principle: leverage existing taxonomies where you can and only build (or modify) where absolutely necessary. Standard organizations have clever and dedicated resources that do a wonderful job - why would I attempt doing it myself and believe I could do it better :-) ?

              Working in a highly regulated environment (pharma) we have several areas where the MAA, FDA etc. dictate what authoritative sources we have to use for e.g. metadata values and even the type of metadata itself. And of course the various authorities don't always ask for the same standards. Though this may sound burdensome - and sometimes it is - compliance can be your best friend to get things done.

              Web navigation taxonomies are on the simple end of the spectrum. We design them flat and simple but tailored to the content and site intend.

              I do not believe in 'librarians' designing taxonomies for an organization. I believe in librarians guiding business SME's in the proper design of a business process or purpose oriented taxonomy and working with a DBA/technical lead to properly implement it. It needs all three skill sets to be successful.

              I would love to hear from folks that outsource taxonomy development/maintenance (not the web page navigation type though) and how that is working for them.

              Specifically, anyone that has experience with Intellisophic?

              UIMA and Analytics deserves it's own discussion thread. Any takers for a kick-off message? :-)

              Regards,

              Karin

               

               


               


              Von: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
              Gesendet: 26.01.07 21:57:29
              An:
              Betreff: RE: [TaxoCoP] Re: joining taxoCoP for research purposes.

              Good questions? We could write an article(or research report ;-) ) about this topic.  
              Are more companies buying rather than building their own taxonomies? Dothey find the taxonomies need modification to meet their needs? In my experience, organizations can?treally purchase taxonomy that is directly useful for them withoutmodification.  Purchased taxonomies are a starting point in some cases,but may be too large to be useful.  Sometimes the paring down of a taxocan be as much work as building them up from existing content and termsources.  In the latter case, the taxo will likely be more focused andappropriate.  Do they mostly have internal resources (e.g., library scientists) to dothe work?  This varies widely.  In some cases ifthere is an in house librarian, they may take responsibility for thetaxonomy.  However, this is best handled by a cross functional team thatincludes usability people, IT, business line representation as well as someonewell versed in categorization and library science.  If 3rd party, is it typical to have internal resources work with theconsulting company to learn development and maintenance skills?Yes, this is necessary if there is to becontinuity and maintenance of the taxonomy.  Most savvy organizations willbudget for this.  Not devoting internal resources to work side by sidewith outside people will negatively impact the long term viability of thetaxonomy.  I actually have to run to a meeting. Anyone else want to take a stab at this or Rita?s other questions?
              Seth
                     
              Seth Earley
              Earley & Associates, Inc
              781-444-0287
              781-820-8080 cell


              From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Knox,Rita
              Sent: Thursday, January 25, 20075:09 PM
              To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [TaxoCoP] Re: joiningtaxoCoP for research purposes.
              thanks for the welcome and your questions, Seth.
              regarding taxonomies
              : are more companies buying rather than building theirown taxonomies? If they do buy them, do they find the taxonomies need (a lotof) modification to meet their needs? Do they mostly have internalresources (e.g., library scientists) to do the work, or contract with 3rdparties (like Earley and assocs!) to do the work? If 3rd party, is it typicalto have internal resources work with the consulting company to learn developmentand maintenance skills?
              regarding "other things": content analytics -- interested in how"analytics" can be categorized (e.g., social analysis, expertiselocation), how processes can be serialized to answer specific questions,and how UIMA (unstructured information management architecture) will/will notplay in this (OASIS is paying attention to this <http://www.oasis-open.org/news/oasis-news-2006-11-16.php> ).
              Extensible Markup Language (XML) -- many issues for a long time.
              Seth: "(Not sure if you are acquainted with CarolRozwell at Gartner. She is a
              long time colleague from the industry.)

              Seth Earley

              absolutely know Carol. will let her know you asked!
              rgds.
              -- rita
              Rita E. Knox, Ph.D. | VP & Research Director| Information Infrastructure | GartnerOffice:+1 818 785 5111 | Inquiry: +1 203 316 1200 | www.gartner.com <http://www.gartner.com/> | inquiry@...


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