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

RE: [TaxoCoP] Content Taxonomy versus Navigational Taxonomy

Expand Messages
  • Gardner, Mike
    I thought I would chip in on this discussion as well. First, there was a good session in London run by the International Society for Knowledge Organization
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I thought I would chip in on this discussion as well.
      First, there was a good session in London run by the International Society for Knowledge Organization entitled "Ranganathan Revisited" which provided a range of presentations from the theoretical to the practical on faceted classification. There is a good summary and the foils and MP3s for each presentation available at http://www.iskouk.org/kokonov2007.htm
      Secondly I thought I would add my own personal view of content taxonomy vs navigational taxonomy and how I have always thought about them. I don't claim to be an expert in the theory so I may have the terminology wrong but this is what I tell our folk. The navigational taxonomy is simply the way you navigate to get to an object, be that on a website, a folder structure on your desktop, etc. It is the way that users have been used to getting to content in the past, and is normally hierarchical. There can be many different navigational taxonomies across an organization (each employee creates their own on their desktop when storing content in folders). I always think of the content taxonomy as the ability to then apply metadata against the objects which are on the websites or in repositories. They enable each object to be associated with metadata and thus, using some form of filtered view or search capability, the content can then be retrieved. In some cases web site views ca be configured to present content based on content taxonomy (i.e. a link on the page provides a filtered view or search of content in the background).

      Mike Gardner
      EDS CIO EKM Team - EDS Taxonomist & Content Rationalization Leader
      Telephone: +44 (0) 1332 227367 (Hudson House) - Mon
      +44 (0)1332 663964 (Home Office) - Tue - Fri
      Mobile: +44 (0)7790 492991
      Hudson House, Derby, UK

      This email contains information which is confidential and may be privileged. Unless you are the intended addressee (or authorised to receive for the addressee) you may not use, forward, copy or disclose to anyone this email or any information contained in this email. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender by reply email immediately and delete this email.

      Electronic Data Systems Ltd
      Registered Office:, Lansdowne House, Berkeley Square, London  W1J 6ER
      Registered in England no: 53419
      VAT number: 432 99 5915


      From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Maechtlen
      Sent: 12 December 2007 07:54
      To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Content Taxonomy versus Navigational Taxonomy

      Kevin Hannon wrote:

      > A good example is a corporate Taxonomy. Many corporate Intranets that
      > cover hundreds-of- thousands of documents across the enterprise will
      > break their taxonomies into functional pieces such as Legal, HR and
      > Finance. However, when the Website visitor (in this case an employee),
      > searches at the top level, he or she is unaware that there are different
      > taxonomies, as the categories returned may span the different Functional
      > Taxonomies. It isn't until the Web visitor clicks on a category to
      > narrow his or her search that the single Taxonomy is delivered. And even
      > then, there is no knowledge of the different Functional Taxonomies
      > residing in the background.
      > Whether the Taxonomy is presented as a set of terms to navigate instead
      > of or in addition to search, both types of Taxonomies need to exist.

      Well, I'm just a visitor to taxonomyland, but...

      In some sense, if you already have a faceted taxonomy (which at least
      one responder claimed), it would seem plausible to have one or more
      'user' facets, rather than two or more taxonomies glued together with

      Or would that be an unworkable mess?


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