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

Re: [TaxoCoP] Happy New Year Fellow Taxonomy Nerds!

Expand Messages
  • Keipat Patkei
    Nick--really appreciate your response. In particular, thanks for the comment about educate until we re blue in the face. I think this has something to do
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Nick--really appreciate your response. In particular, thanks for the comment about "educate until we're blue in the face." I think this has something to do with certain utopian concepts about "collaboration" and of "librarianship" or what librarians "do/should do" that have been swept up in to discussions about not just the use of controlled vocabularies for categorizing/classifying (manually or semi-automatically), but the building, maintenance, and development of them to support seemingly endless, frequently pointless "requirements."

      Stephanie--I'm just glad that the title of the prediction wasn't "Taxonomies AND Metadata are Dead!" The way I'm reading this CMS WATCH info dab is in the sense that a hierarchical structure, such as those known as taxonomies and, in particular, as defined by, say the applicable ANSI/NISO standards, are not, for the most part, going to be applicable to all personal and business information goals and requirements.

      In other words, the notion of the "one size fits all" structures could well be on its way out, dead, "last nail in the coffin" in 2009, even though many thought, and have been stressing to the likes of CMS WATCH et al., that that was the case some time ago. Many in this group probably don't need CMS WATCH telling us certain things while many in this group appreciate it because any reinforcement of what we suspect is always grateful. We're all at different points on a trajectory.

      However, I don't see the practice of taxonomy, in the sense of contextual analysis and the manual and semi-automatic application of a variety of metadata values--derived from various controlled vocabularies--to content in order to support a variety of "best practices" and requirements, as dying any time soon.

      Keith DeWeese
      Tribune Company

      --- On Thu, 1/1/09, Nick Berry <infoglutton@...> wrote:

      > From: Nick Berry <infoglutton@...>
      > Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Happy New Year Fellow Taxonomy Nerds!
      > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 12:25 AM
      > I see a long list of esteemed analysts responsible for this
      > banal and
      > shallow treatment of the concept of taxonomy. Quality
      > taxonomies are not
      > now and have never been about "single-hierarchy"
      > - the primary aspect of the
      > hallowed analysts' accusation that implies that
      > taxonomies are overly rigid.
      >
      >
      > Many of us have realized that we can educate until
      > we're blue in the face,
      > but as long as we continue to promote the use of the word
      > "taxonomy," we are
      > left in an awkward position, because the word has both
      > denotative and
      > connotative implications of hierarchy (parent/child,
      > class/object,
      > genus/species). A more accurate word for the information
      > structures that
      > most of us create is "ontology," which implies
      > complex relationship types
      > and the ability to create logical inferences based on the
      > codified
      > relationships among entities and elements that are modeled
      > in this type of
      > knowledge organization system.
      >
      > I think we've outgrown the term Taxonomy. Let's
      > take the leap and call them
      > Ontologies, not only to claim the space but also to silence
      > the dunderheads
      > like these guys (who are decent people, no doubt, just
      > doing their
      > journalistic duty by trying to sensationalize a
      > nonsensational story).
      >
      > Happy new year to you too, Steph, and to all the good
      > Ontologists out there.
      >
      > Cheers,
      > Nick
      >
      > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Stephanie Lemieux
      > <stephanie@...>wrote:
      >
      > > On this December 31st, I'd like to wish all the
      > members of the CoP a
      > > happy new year on behalf of Seth Earley and all of
      > Earley & Associates.
      > >
      > > We have great fun managing this community and ensuring
      > that we
      > > taxonomy geeks have a place to discuss hot taxonomy
      > topics with peers.
      > > Here's to a new year filled with discovery,
      > collaboration and mirth.
      > >
      > > I also invite you all to read the CMS Watch
      > predictions for 2009 -
      > > check out #3: Taxonomies are dead. Long live metadata!
      > >
      > http://www.cmswatch.com/Feature/189-Predictions-2009?source=RSS
      > >
      > > What do you think? Does 2009 signal the end for us
      > taxonomy nerds?
      > > Chime in with your response during the first week of
      > January and we
      > > will summarize the answers in our next blog post.
      > >
      > > Thanks, and happy new year!
      > >
      > > Stephanie Lemieux
      > > Earley & Associates
      > >
      > >
      > >
    • Matt Moore
      Nick, Given that the term ontology has been almost completely absorbed by computer scientists, I think we need to be cautious about taking on a label - esp.
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Nick,

        Given that the term "ontology" has been almost completely absorbed by computer scientists, I think we need to be cautious about taking on a label - esp. as there seems to be increasing hype around the semantic web without a corresponding level of understanding (now there's a topic a would love Common Craft to apply their trade mark "Plain English" presentation skills to). Every information structure is not a ontology (and nor should it be).

        The label should describe taxonomists by the benefits we offer people and not the technology we use to achieve that (which can vary from free-form folksonomies to highly structured ontologies).

        "Information Architect" is actually a damn good description of what a taxonomist does - but that label is applied to all kinds of roles & work now.

        "Findologist"?
        "Meaning Mapper"?
        "Metadata Mechanic"?

        Cheers,

        Matt

      • Jay Maechtlen
        ... As other things evolve, perhaps also the meaning of taxonomy should also? Or, do you mean that people just don t understand the ways that taxonomies have
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Nick Berry wrote:
          > I see a long list of esteemed analysts responsible for this banal and
          > shallow treatment of the concept of taxonomy. Quality taxonomies are
          > not now and have never been about "single-hierarchy" - the primary
          > aspect of the hallowed analysts' accusation that implies that taxonomies
          > are overly rigid.
          >
          > Many of us have realized that we can educate until we're blue in the
          > face, but as long as we continue to promote the use of the word
          > "taxonomy," we are left in an awkward position, because the word has
          > both denotative and connotative implications of hierarchy (parent/child,
          > class/object, genus/species). A more accurate word for the information
          > structures that most of us create is "ontology," which implies complex
          > relationship types and the ability to create logical inferences based on
          > the codified relationships among entities and elements that are modeled
          > in this type of knowledge organization system.
          >
          > I think we've outgrown the term Taxonomy. Let's take the leap and call
          > them Ontologies, not only to claim the space but also to silence the
          > dunderheads like these guys (who are decent people, no doubt, just doing
          > their journalistic duty by trying to sensationalize a nonsensational
          > story).
          >
          As other things evolve, perhaps also the meaning of 'taxonomy' should also?
          Or, do you mean that people just don't understand the ways that
          taxonomies have evolved?

          As a taxonomy user/wannabe, it seems to me that a major problem is
          visually representing anything more than a strict hierarchy.

          When playing with Protege a while back, it seemed that any visual output
          was still 2-d.
          Odd. Seems like we could do a lot better.

          Do any of the mapping/km tools know how to generate multi-dimensional
          representations? Acrobat Reader can display really nice 3-D CAD models,
          with layer control and such. This seems like it could be prett handy.

          Or, is the visual representation not so important?

          Regards
          Jay

          --
          Jay Maechtlen
          626 444-5112 office
          626 840-8875 cell
          www.laserpubs.com
        • Gabriel Tanase
          Jay, Even if we had tools showing concept boxes interlinked in 3D, it s still only one dimension more than 2D: not much of a progress, IMHO. Unfortunately for
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 5, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Jay,

            Even if we had tools showing concept boxes interlinked in 3D, it's still only one dimension more than 2D: not much of a progress, IMHO.
            Unfortunately for visualizations of ontologies, our eyes and brains are wired to work with the real world, not with the google'd world.

            Various attempts have been made since long ago in the experimental UI arena to represent multi-dimensional, not necessarily hierarchical, webs of concepts or/and instances. I haven't seen any of these progressing to mainstream. At the end of the day, it's still about clever visual tricks.
            For a simple example (which I used for a short while) see TheBrain.

            The same issue (sort of) is well-known in business intelligence / datawarehousing. No matter how hard one tries, a OLAP hypercube with many dimensions still ends up in 2D as a spreadsheet or a printed report.


            Finally, we can remember that our ancestors painted on cave walls and did manage to convey movement and perspective.


            Kind regards,
            Gabriel



            2009/1/5 Jay Maechtlen <jaysjunk9@...>
            Nick Berry wrote:
            > I see a long list of esteemed analysts responsible for this banal and
            > shallow treatment of the concept of taxonomy.  Quality taxonomies are
            > not now and have never been about "single-hierarchy" - the primary
            > aspect of the hallowed analysts' accusation that implies that taxonomies
            > are overly rigid.
            >
            [...]
             
            >
            As other things evolve, perhaps also the meaning of 'taxonomy' should also?
            Or, do you mean that people just don't understand the ways that
            taxonomies have evolved?

            As a taxonomy user/wannabe, it seems to me that a major problem is
            visually representing anything more than a strict hierarchy.

            When playing with Protege a while back, it seemed that any visual output
            was still 2-d.
            Odd. Seems like we could do a lot better.

            Do any of the mapping/km tools know how to generate multi-dimensional
            representations? Acrobat Reader can display really nice 3-D CAD models,
            with layer control and such. This seems like it could be prett handy.

            Or, is the visual representation not so important?

            Regards
            Jay

            --
            Jay Maechtlen
            626 444-5112 office
            626 840-8875 cell
            www.laserpubs.com


          • Torrie Hodgson
            Hi Matt, My favorite relevant title from a previous job was, Knowlege Integrator. Regrettably I delayed requisitioning the cape and spandex suit the name
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 9, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Matt,
               
              My favorite relevant title from a previous job was, "Knowlege Integrator." Regrettably I delayed requisitioning the cape and spandex suit the name always evoked for me. I also had to resist the temptation to adopt the hands-on-hips superhero stance when I introduced myself.
               
              In my family of four there are two librarians, four readers/collectors of unusual dictionaries, one old-school mainframe systems analyst, and one with an actual linguistics degree. We tend to refer to ourselves as "button sorters," sort of the natural counterpart to "bean counters." However, I can't see that phrase really catching on as a job title.
              Thanks,
              Torrie Thomas (now just identified as "Consultant")
              On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Matt Moore <laalgadger@...> wrote:

              Nick,

              Given that the term "ontology" has been almost completely absorbed by computer scientists, I think we need to be cautious about taking on a label - esp. as there seems to be increasing hype around the semantic web without a corresponding level of understanding (now there's a topic a would love Common Craft to apply their trade mark "Plain English" presentation skills to). Every information structure is not a ontology (and nor should it be).

              The label should describe taxonomists by the benefits we offer people and not the technology we use to achieve that (which can vary from free-form folksonomies to highly structured ontologies).

              "Information Architect" is actually a damn good description of what a taxonomist does - but that label is applied to all kinds of roles & work now.

              "Findologist"?
              "Meaning Mapper"?
              "Metadata Mechanic"?

              Cheers,

              Matt




              --
              Torrie Thomas
              torriehodgson@...
            • Seth Earley
              Very funny. I know many of our consultants think of themselves in super hero terms (as I think of them of course). They don t use capes, but they do have hats
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 9, 2009
              • 0 Attachment

                Very funny.  I know many of our consultants think of themselves in super hero terms (as I think of them of course). 

                 

                They don’t use capes, but they do have hats with things like “Use your taxonomy powers for good, not evil”

                 

                Seth

                 

                 

                From: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Torrie Hodgson
                Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 2:09 PM
                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] The "O" Word

                 

                Hi Matt,

                 

                My favorite relevant title from a previous job was, "Knowlege Integrator." Regrettably I delayed requisitioning the cape and spandex suit the name always evoked for me. I also had to resist the temptation to adopt the hands-on-hips superhero stance when I introduced myself.

                 

                In my family of four there are two librarians, four readers/collectors of unusual dictionaries, one old-school mainframe systems analyst, and one with an actual linguistics degree. We tend to refer to ourselves as "button sorters," sort of the natural counterpart to "bean counters." However, I can't see that phrase really catching on as a job title.

                Thanks,

                Torrie Thomas (now just identified as "Consultant")

                On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Matt Moore <laalgadger@...> wrote:

                Nick,

                Given that the term "ontology" has been almost completely absorbed by computer scientists, I think we need to be cautious about taking on a label - esp. as there seems to be increasing hype around the semantic web without a corresponding level of understanding (now there's a topic a would love Common Craft to apply their trade mark "Plain English" presentation skills to). Every information structure is not a ontology (and nor should it be).

                The label should describe taxonomists by the benefits we offer people and not the technology we use to achieve that (which can vary from free-form folksonomies to highly structured ontologies).

                "Information Architect" is actually a damn good description of what a taxonomist does - but that label is applied to all kinds of roles & work now.

                "Findologist"?
                "Meaning Mapper"?
                "Metadata Mechanic"?

                Cheers,

                Matt

                 




                --
                Torrie Thomas
                torriehodgson@...

              • barbaraemcglamery
                I have been a: Data Manager (detested) Sr. Data Manager (even more detested, but at least senior) Senior Librarian for Ontology Development (wordy and no one
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 9, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  I have been a:

                  Data Manager (detested)
                  Sr. Data Manager (even more detested, but at least senior)
                  Senior Librarian for Ontology Development (wordy and no one knows what
                  it is)
                  Currently I'm a Metadata Architect(which is my favorite)

                  I have an MLIS so for years I just told people I was a "librarian" and
                  let them think I shelved books and practiced looking sternly at
                  people. Now I tell people I'm an "architect" and I get questions
                  about building design.

                  Go figure.

                  I agree we need more standardized titles. I've always loved
                  "Information Officer." It would come with a badge and gun.

                  Barbara McGlamery
                  Time Inc.
                • Torrie Hodgson
                  If we re talking about making up a new term in the American English language market, I wouldn t mind being a Knowledge-ist though I now think the word looks
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 9, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If we're talking about making up a new term in the American English language market, I wouldn't mind being a "Knowledge-ist" though I now think the word looks a little clumsy in type without the hyphen or second e.
                     
                    Pros:
                    • It sounds like it has that studious and professional "-ologist" suffix
                    • You could use clever presentation puns around getting the "gist" of a body of knowledge as a generalist
                    • It's a single word to fit easily on a business card or e-mail sig
                    • Laypeople stand a fighting chance of guessing somewhere in the ballpark of what we do
                    • Laypeople will quit asking if I stuff dead birds (taxidermist) for a living when I tell them that I'm a taxonomist
                    Cons:
                    • It seems to embody knowledge storage/retrieval/consumption in a broad sense rather than being specifically taxonomy-based (not that I personally mind)
                    • The spelling really does look klutzy now that I've typed it out, and the hyphen could cause some inadvertent mangling for alphabetizing or rendering in different systems
                    • It might not be easily localizable in other languages, or at least not as entertainingly useful
                    • HR people or programs tasked with cranking through many resumes may not recognize such a job title/function potentially causing our resumes to be discarded in the first round of job applicants
                    This has been a fun exercise. I'm enjoying this thread very much, but I've got to head back to the land of paid productivity now.
                     
                    Torrie Thomas, MLS (yes, the venerable ancestor of the MLIS)
                     
                    Consultant
                    Aquent Studios

                    On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, barbaraemcglamery <bmcglamery@...> wrote:

                    I have been a:

                    Data Manager (detested)
                    Sr. Data Manager (even more detested, but at least senior)
                    Senior Librarian for Ontology Development (wordy and no one knows what
                    it is)
                    Currently I'm a Metadata Architect(which is my favorite)

                    I have an MLIS so for years I just told people I was a "librarian" and
                    let them think I shelved books and practiced looking sternly at
                    people. Now I tell people I'm an "architect" and I get questions
                    about building design.

                    Go figure.

                    I agree we need more standardized titles. I've always loved
                    "Information Officer." It would come with a badge and gun.

                    Barbara McGlamery
                    Time Inc.




                    --
                    Torrie Thomas
                    torriehodgson@...
                  • Patrick Lambe
                    So it s fun thinking up new names for ourselves. But back to whether or not we have any future as taxonomists I find it a bit worrying that we supposed
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 12, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      So it's fun thinking up new names for ourselves. But back to whether
                      or not we have any future as "taxonomists" I find it a bit worrying
                      that we supposed masters and mistresses of the science of naming are
                      so easily thrown off our balance about our own name by such a "banal
                      and shallow" prediction from CMS Watch (to quote Nick Berry).

                      I've blogged about this here: http://www.greenchameleon.com/ok/view/what_are_we/

                      We build taxonomies. We sell taxonomies. We manage them. People ask us
                      to help them with their taxonomies. We belong to a community of
                      practice organised for discussing taxonomy work - the word "taxonomy"
                      drew us here. Yes, many of us do other things as well, and we have
                      names for those disciplines and identities alongside the taxonomy
                      identity.

                      And we have pragmatic ways of describing ourselves differently
                      depending on who the audience is and how informed they are likely to
                      be. But I do find it odd we are so insecure even amongst ourselves. Is
                      it really in the nature of taxonomists to be so fickle about names or
                      just our own? Are we so unsuccessful in our current label that we need
                      to find another to struggle under? And would a label change actually
                      remove the challenges we face in what we do?

                      Patrick

                      Patrick Lambe

                      weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
                      website: www.straitsknowledge.com
                      book: www.organisingknowledge.com

                      Have you seen our KM Method Cards? http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/
                    • Keipat Patkei
                      Patrick, I agree with you 100%, but I can t dismiss the fact, either, that, though we all know politics can kill a taxonomy project, many of them can t succeed
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 12, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Patrick,

                        I agree with you 100%, but I can't dismiss the fact, either, that, though we all know politics can kill a taxonomy project, many of them can't succeed without politics, too. Also, I can't ignore the fact that your successes have not necessarily been mine, and that's just the way it is.

                        I think the renaming of titles, whether it's to help get on comparable, 21st century payscales with other co-workers or just clarify what we do within the confines of a string of letters that can fit on a conference badge, is a real and constant challenge for many.

                        Also, in some environments where marketing and sales are "all," the challenges might be even worse, and these exercises in coming up with new titles speaks to constant attempts of people to defend what they do and know; or appease and placate "stakeholders" who have been over sold on the benefits of taxonomy by not being able to understand it in the first place because they've never directly engaged in it!

                        I think it's all about trying to communicate something of what we do during times of intense scrutiny and justification. Some have it better than others, others are just learning, and still others are giving up all based on their individual realms of experience.

                        Also, I appreciate the CMS Watch prediction because it's allowed me to rethink and recast it to my benefit, which, as I think I've mentioned, now means to me that the practice of taxonomy isn't dead because CVs aren't going anywhere fast, but the notion that a singular taxonomy or even the which ever ones might be tacked on to CMS systems and sold as meeting all needs just might be. And if that taxonomy that does meet all needs is "out there," please, someone, help me find it because it would make things a whole lot easier at my work place :-)

                        BTW, I'm quoting you frequently in a year end, state of the taxonomy report I'm currently writing, even though I no longer know if any amount of review of my last years successes cast against your great thoughts is really going to matter to my stakeholders' fantasy land expectations of what quality results should be or what passes as precise automatic tagging.

                        At this point, with IT still not able to "get it" and vocally dismissing it, and "Marketing" thinking it can do it better, and Editors/Producers still thinking they should just tag any old words to content "because the social networkers and folksonomists say we don't need taxonomy"--all this even after countless presentations and demos and successful launches and numbers going up--I'm just not sure what will help--maybe calling myself Taxonomeus, God of Taxonomy is worth a try!

                        Thanks,

                        Keith DeWeese

                        --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

                        > From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
                        > Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Re: Sounds like a job for Knowledge Integrator!
                        > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                        > Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 5:21 AM
                        > So it's fun thinking up new names for ourselves. But
                        > back to whether
                        > or not we have any future as "taxonomists" I find
                        > it a bit worrying
                        > that we supposed masters and mistresses of the science of
                        > naming are
                        > so easily thrown off our balance about our own name by such
                        > a "banal
                        > and shallow" prediction from CMS Watch (to quote Nick
                        > Berry).
                        >
                        > I've blogged about this here:
                        > http://www.greenchameleon.com/ok/view/what_are_we/
                        >
                        > We build taxonomies. We sell taxonomies. We manage them.
                        > People ask us
                        > to help them with their taxonomies. We belong to a
                        > community of
                        > practice organised for discussing taxonomy work - the word
                        > "taxonomy"
                        > drew us here. Yes, many of us do other things as well, and
                        > we have
                        > names for those disciplines and identities alongside the
                        > taxonomy
                        > identity.
                        >
                        > And we have pragmatic ways of describing ourselves
                        > differently
                        > depending on who the audience is and how informed they are
                        > likely to
                        > be. But I do find it odd we are so insecure even amongst
                        > ourselves. Is
                        > it really in the nature of taxonomists to be so fickle
                        > about names or
                        > just our own? Are we so unsuccessful in our current label
                        > that we need
                        > to find another to struggle under? And would a label change
                        > actually
                        > remove the challenges we face in what we do?
                        >
                        > Patrick
                        >
                        > Patrick Lambe
                        >
                        > weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
                        > website: www.straitsknowledge.com
                        > book: www.organisingknowledge.com
                        >
                        > Have you seen our KM Method Cards?
                        > http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/
                      • Patrick Lambe
                        Keith Thanks for this reply. I don t think there is such a thing as success in most taxonomy work there is only the possibility of improvement, much of it
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 12, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Keith

                          Thanks for this reply. I don't think there is such a thing as "success" in most taxonomy work there is only the possibility of improvement, much of it hard-won.

                          What worried me about the reaction to the CMSWatch thing was how easily we can be distracted from the very difficult challenges we face (and I don't think yours are atypical) and how easily we are dismayed by a very distorted representation of what we do. We're in a tough, demanding, rapidly evolving field. We should in theory be used to remaining constant through such misrepresentation because we're used to it - though we might be annoyed that this comes as a sideswipe from people who should know better.

                          BTW, Theresa Regli (who has a strong background in taxonomy work herself, which compounds the misdemeanour in my view) was the author of that particular prediction, and has come back to defend herself quite robustly on my blog at www.organisingknowledge.com.

                          Maybe I'm being more cranky and stuffy than I need to be, but I really think we have to be more assertive and confident about what we do. Now Taxonomeus might be a step in that direction!!

                          Best

                          Patrick


                          Patrick Lambe

                          website: www.straitsknowledge.com

                          Have you seen our KM Method Cards?   http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/



                          On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Keipat Patkei wrote:

                          Patrick,

                          I agree with you 100%, but I can't dismiss the fact, either, that, though we all know politics can kill a taxonomy project, many of them can't succeed without politics, too. Also, I can't ignore the fact that your successes have not necessarily been mine, and that's just the way it is.

                          I think the renaming of titles, whether it's to help get on comparable, 21st century payscales with other co-workers or just clarify what we do within the confines of a string of letters that can fit on a conference badge, is a real and constant challenge for many.

                          Also, in some environments where marketing and sales are "all," the challenges might be even worse, and these exercises in coming up with new titles speaks to constant attempts of people to defend what they do and know; or appease and placate "stakeholders" who have been over sold on the benefits of taxonomy by not being able to understand it in the first place because they've never directly engaged in it!

                          I think it's all about trying to communicate something of what we do during times of intense scrutiny and justification. Some have it better than others, others are just learning, and still others are giving up all based on their individual realms of experience. 

                          Also, I appreciate the CMS Watch prediction because it's allowed me to rethink and recast it to my benefit, which, as I think I've mentioned, now means to me that the practice of taxonomy isn't dead because CVs aren't going anywhere fast, but the notion that a singular taxonomy or even the which ever ones might be tacked on to CMS systems and sold as meeting all needs just might be. And if that taxonomy that does meet all needs is "out there," please, someone, help me find it because it would make things a whole lot easier at my work place :-)

                          BTW, I'm quoting you frequently in a year end, state of the taxonomy report I'm currently writing, even though I no longer know if any amount of review of my last years successes cast against your great thoughts is really going to matter to my stakeholders' fantasy land expectations of what quality results should be or what passes as precise automatic tagging. 

                          At this point, with IT still not able to "get it" and vocally dismissing it, and "Marketing" thinking it can do it better, and Editors/Producers still thinking they should just tag any old words to content "because the social networkers and folksonomists say we don't need taxonomy"--all this even after countless presentations and demos and successful launches and numbers going up--I'm just not sure what will help--maybe calling myself Taxonomeus, God of Taxonomy is worth a try!

                          Thanks,

                          Keith DeWeese


                        • Keipat Patkei
                          And I will quote you! You ve hit the nail on the head about confidence. Thanks a lot for the boost. Keith
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 12, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            And I will quote you! You've hit the nail on the head about confidence. Thanks a lot for the boost.

                            Keith

                            --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> wrote:

                            > From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
                            > Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Re: Sounds like a job for Knowledge Integrator!
                            > To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                            > Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 11:37 PM
                            > Keith
                            >
                            > Thanks for this reply. I don't think there is such a
                            > thing as "success" in most taxonomy work there is
                            > only the possibility of improvement, much of it hard-won.
                            >
                            > What worried me about the reaction to the CMSWatch thing
                            > was how easily we can be distracted from the very difficult
                            > challenges we face (and I don't think yours are
                            > atypical) and how easily we are dismayed by a very distorted
                            > representation of what we do. We're in a tough,
                            > demanding, rapidly evolving field. We should in theory be
                            > used to remaining constant through such misrepresentation
                            > because we're used to it - though we might be annoyed
                            > that this comes as a sideswipe from people who should know
                            > better.
                            >
                            > BTW, Theresa Regli (who has a strong background in taxonomy
                            > work herself, which compounds the misdemeanour in my view)
                            > was the author of that particular prediction, and has come
                            > back to defend herself quite robustly on my blog at
                            > www.organisingknowledge.com.
                            >
                            > Maybe I'm being more cranky and stuffy than I need to
                            > be, but I really think we have to be more assertive and
                            > confident about what we do. Now Taxonomeus might be a step
                            > in that direction!!
                            >
                            > Best
                            >
                            > Patrick
                            >
                            >
                            > Patrick Lambe
                            >
                            > weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
                            > website: www.straitsknowledge.com
                            > book: www.organisingknowledge.com
                            >
                            > Have you seen our KM Method Cards?
                            > http://www.straitsknowledge.com/store/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:23 PM, Keipat Patkei wrote:
                            >
                            > > Patrick,
                            > >
                            > > I agree with you 100%, but I can't dismiss the
                            > fact, either, that, though we all know politics can kill a
                            > taxonomy project, many of them can't succeed without
                            > politics, too. Also, I can't ignore the fact that your
                            > successes have not necessarily been mine, and that's
                            > just the way it is.
                            > >
                            > > I think the renaming of titles, whether it's to
                            > help get on comparable, 21st century payscales with other
                            > co-workers or just clarify what we do within the confines of
                            > a string of letters that can fit on a conference badge, is a
                            > real and constant challenge for many.
                            > >
                            > > Also, in some environments where marketing and sales
                            > are "all," the challenges might be even worse, and
                            > these exercises in coming up with new titles speaks to
                            > constant attempts of people to defend what they do and know;
                            > or appease and placate "stakeholders" who have
                            > been over sold on the benefits of taxonomy by not being able
                            > to understand it in the first place because they've
                            > never directly engaged in it!
                            > >
                            > > I think it's all about trying to communicate
                            > something of what we do during times of intense scrutiny and
                            > justification. Some have it better than others, others are
                            > just learning, and still others are giving up all based on
                            > their individual realms of experience.
                            > >
                            > > Also, I appreciate the CMS Watch prediction because
                            > it's allowed me to rethink and recast it to my benefit,
                            > which, as I think I've mentioned, now means to me that
                            > the practice of taxonomy isn't dead because CVs
                            > aren't going anywhere fast, but the notion that a
                            > singular taxonomy or even the which ever ones might be
                            > tacked on to CMS systems and sold as meeting all needs just
                            > might be. And if that taxonomy that does meet all needs is
                            > "out there," please, someone, help me find it
                            > because it would make things a whole lot easier at my work
                            > place :-)
                            > >
                            > > BTW, I'm quoting you frequently in a year end,
                            > state of the taxonomy report I'm currently writing, even
                            > though I no longer know if any amount of review of my last
                            > years successes cast against your great thoughts is really
                            > going to matter to my stakeholders' fantasy land
                            > expectations of what quality results should be or what
                            > passes as precise automatic tagging.
                            > >
                            > > At this point, with IT still not able to "get
                            > it" and vocally dismissing it, and
                            > "Marketing" thinking it can do it better, and
                            > Editors/Producers still thinking they should just tag any
                            > old words to content "because the social networkers and
                            > folksonomists say we don't need taxonomy"--all this
                            > even after countless presentations and demos and successful
                            > launches and numbers going up--I'm just not sure what
                            > will help--maybe calling myself Taxonomeus, God of Taxonomy
                            > is worth a try!
                            > >
                            > > Thanks,
                            > >
                            > > Keith DeWeese
                            > >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.