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

Most common facets used within organisations

Expand Messages
  • Matt Moore
    Hello, I m curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are: - Products -
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
      - Products
      - Customers/Clients/Stakeholders
      - Business Units
      - Locations
      - Processes
      - Projects

      Any further suggestions?

      Regards,

      Matt
    • John O'Gorman
      Good morning, Matt; The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Good morning, Matt;
         
        The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations), Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
         
        Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.
         
        Hope that helps.
         
        John O'
         
         
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture@...]
        Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 04:40 AM
        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

         

        Hello,

        I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
        - Products
        - Customers/Clients/ Stakeholders
        - Business Units
        - Locations
        - Processes
        - Projects

        Any further suggestions?

        Regards,

        Matt

      • Matt Moore
        John, So where is this definitive list? References please! Cheers, Matt ________________________________ From: John O Gorman To:
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          John,

          So where is this definitive list? References please!

          Cheers,

          Matt


          From: John O'Gorman <jogorman@...>
          To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 12:50:05 AM
          Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

           

          Good morning, Matt;
           
          The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
           
          Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.
           
          Hope that helps.
           
          John O'
           
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture @...]
          Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 04:40 AM
          To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
          Subject: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

           

          Hello,

          I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
          - Products
          - Customers/Clients/ Stakeholders
          - Business Units
          - Locations
          - Processes
          - Projects

          Any further suggestions?

          Regards,

          Matt


        • John O'Gorman
          In the post...count em (19). No references. :~) John O The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            In the post...count 'em (19). No references. :~)
             
            John O'
             
            "
            The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations), Assets (digitalconceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
             
            "
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture@...]
            Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 12:05 PM
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

             
            John,

            So where is this definitive list? References please!

            Cheers,

            Matt


            From: John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com>
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
            Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 12:50:05 AM
            Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

             

             

            Good morning, Matt;
             
            The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
             
            Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.
             
            Hope that helps.
             
            John O'
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture @...]
            Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 04:40 AM
            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
            Subject: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

             

            Hello,

            I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
            - Products
            - Customers/Clients/ Stakeholders
            - Business Units
            - Locations
            - Processes
            - Projects

            Any further suggestions?

            Regards,

            Matt


             

          • Leonard Will
            On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 20:35:09, John O Gorman wrote ... What makes this list definitive , though? Leonard Will -- Willpower
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 20:35:09, John O'Gorman <jogorman@...>
              wrote
              >In the post...count 'em (19). No references. :~)
              >
              >John O'
              >
              >" The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a
              >mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has
              >nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the
              >exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary
              >facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations), Assets
              >(digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and
              >relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions
              >(disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span
              >and status).
              >
              >"

              What makes this list "definitive", though?

              Leonard Will

              --
              Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
              Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
              27 Calshot Way L.Will@...
              ENFIELD Sheena.Will@...
              EN2 7BQ, UK http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/
            • Heather Hedden
              I wouldn t consider a sub-type or category within a facet as a facet. I would count six facets from the list below. Six is a better number anyway for
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I wouldn't consider a sub-type or category within a facet as a facet. I would count six facets from the list below.
                Six is a better number anyway for implementing faceted search.

                -- Heather

                Heather Hedden
                Hedden Information Management
                Heather@...
                www.Hedden-Information.com


                John O'Gorman wrote:
                In the post...count 'em (19). No references. :~)
                 
                John O'
                 
                "
                The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations), Assets (digitalconceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                 
                "
                 
                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture@...]
                Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 12:05 PM
                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

              • John O'Gorman
                Based on my research, and the application of that research to a select few test projects, these nineteen facets are all that are required. By definitive in
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Based on my research, and the application of that research to a select few test projects, these nineteen facets are all that are required. By 'definitive' in this case, I was referring more to the third definition in WordSense...I have no authority.
                   
                   
                  1. definitive, unequivocal -- (clearly defined or formulated; "the plain and unequivocal language of the laws"- R.B.Taney)
                  2. authoritative, classical, definitive -- (of recognized authority or excellence; "the definitive work on Greece"; "classical methods of navigation")
                  3. definitive, determinate -- (supplying or being a final or conclusive settlement; "a definitive verdict"; "a determinate answer to the problem")
                   
                  John O'
                   
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@...]
                  Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 01:43 PM
                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                •  
                  John,

                  So where is this definitive list? References please!

                  Cheers,

                  Matt


                  From: John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com>
                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                  Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 12:50:05 AM
                  Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                   

                   

                  Good morning, Matt;
                   
                  The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                   
                  Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.
                   
                  Hope that helps.
                   
                  John O'
                   
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture @...]
                  Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 04:40 AM
                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                  Subject: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                   

                  Hello,

                  I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
                  - Products
                  - Customers/Clients/ Stakeholders
                  - Business Units
                  - Locations
                  - Processes
                  - Projects

                  Any further suggestions?

                  Regards,

                  Matt


                   

                   

                  On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 20:35:09, John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com>
                  wrote
                  >In the post...count 'em (19). No references. :~)
                  >
                  >John O'
                  >
                  >" The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a
                  >mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has
                  >nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the
                  >exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary
                  >facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets
                  >(digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and
                  >relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions
                  >(disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span
                  >and status).
                  >
                  >"

                  What makes this list "definitive" , though?

                  Leonard Will

                  --
                  Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                  Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                  27 Calshot Way L.Will@Willpowerinf o.co.uk
                  ENFIELD Sheena.Will@ Willpowerinfo. co.uk
                  EN2 7BQ, UK http://www.willpowe rinfo.co. uk/

                • John O'Gorman
                  Good observation. The framework is called Q6, and is most easily explained using only the six major facets. However, I have found that technically speaking,
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Good observation. The framework is called Q6, and is most easily explained using only the six major facets. However, I have found that technically speaking, the nineteen listed here can and are used as facets in their own right: no 'sub-typing' required.
                     
                    John O'
                     
                     
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Heather Hedden [mailto:heather@...]
                    Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 01:59 PM
                    To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                     

                    I wouldn't consider a sub-type or category within a facet as a facet. I would count six facets from the list below.
                    Six is a better number anyway for implementing faceted search.

                    -- Heather

                    Heather Hedden
                    Hedden Information Management
                    Heather@Hedden. net
                    www.Hedden-Informat ion.com


                    John O'Gorman wrote:
                    In the post...count 'em (19). No references. :~)
                     
                    John O'
                     
                    "
                    The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations), Assets (digitalconceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                     
                    "
                     
                     
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture@ yahoo.com]
                    Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 12:05 PM
                    To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                    Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                     
                    John,

                    So where is this definitive list? References please!

                    Cheers,

                    Matt


                    From: John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com>
                    To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                    Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 12:50:05 AM
                    Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                     

                     

                    Good morning, Matt;
                     
                    The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                     
                    Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.
                     
                    Hope that helps.
                     
                    John O'
                     
                     
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture @...]
                    Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 04:40 AM
                    To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                    Subject: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                     

                    Hello,

                    I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
                    - Products
                    - Customers/Clients/ Stakeholders
                    - Business Units
                    - Locations
                    - Processes
                    - Projects

                    Any further suggestions?

                    Regards,

                    Matt


                     

                     

                  • Stavros Macrakis
                    On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM, John O Gorman wrote: The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM, John O'Gorman <jogorman@...> wrote:

                      The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations), Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                       
                      Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.

                      Where can we read up on more details of this system?  It sounds similar in spirit to Ranganathan's Colon system, which has 5 top-level facets: Personality, Matter/Property, Energy, Space, Time.

                                   -s



                    • John O'Gorman
                      Hi Stavros; As a method for managing collections, Q6 is based on Ranganathan s system of classification. Interestingly, it also has a loose resemblence to the
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Stavros;
                         
                        As a method for managing collections, Q6 is based on Ranganathan's system of classification. Interestingly, it also has a loose resemblence to the Zachman Framework for enterprise architecture, but was independently derived.
                         
                        The difference with Q6 is in its granularity and its geometry. In addition to using the concepts of colon classification, the principles of Q6 start at word level and can be extended right up through any digital asset. Photos, documents, diagrams and construction drawings can all be deconstructed and reassembled using the same nineteen facets and Q6 axioms.
                         
                        I'm working on a whitepaper outlining the approach and the results of the first few applications. It should be finished fairly shortly.
                         
                        John O'
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Stavros Macrakis [mailto:macrakis@...]
                        Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 02:09 PM
                        To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                      • Matt Moore
                        John, I think we ll wait for the white paper. My initial comment is that while your approach seems quite rigorous it also seems a little divorced from the
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          John,

                          I think we'll wait for the white paper. My initial comment is that while your approach seems quite rigorous it also seems a little divorced from the language that people use in businesses - no one talks about agents (unless they work for the CIA) but they do talk aboutcustomers, clients, suppliers, and partners.

                          Cheers,

                          Matt



                          ________________________________
                          From: John O'Gorman <jogorman@...>
                          To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 8:31:38 AM
                          Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations


                          Hi Stavros;

                          As a method for managing collections, Q6 is based on Ranganathan' s system of classification. Interestingly, it also has a loose resemblence to the Zachman Framework for enterprise architecture, but was independently derived.

                          The difference with Q6 is in its granularity and its geometry. In addition to using the concepts of colon classification, the principles of Q6 start at word level and can be extended right up through any digital asset. Photos, documents, diagrams and construction drawings can all be deconstructed and reassembled using the same nineteen facets and Q6 axioms.

                          I'm working on a whitepaper outlining the approach and the results of the first few applications. It should be finished fairly shortly.

                          John O'
                        • Matt Moore
                          Heather, And which six have you seen most often? Cheers, Matt ________________________________ From: Heather Hedden To:
                          Message 12 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Heather,

                            And which six have you seen most often?

                            Cheers,

                            Matt


                            From: Heather Hedden <heather@...>
                            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 7:59:08 AM
                            Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                             

                            I wouldn't consider a sub-type or category within a facet as a facet. I would count six facets from the list below.
                            Six is a better number anyway for implementing faceted search.

                            -- Heather

                            Heather Hedden
                            Hedden Information Management
                            Heather@Hedden. net www.Hedden-Informat ion.com


                            John O'Gorman wrote:
                            In the post...count 'em (19). No references. :~)
                             
                            John O'
                             
                            "
                            The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations), Assets (digitalconceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                             
                            "
                             
                             
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture@ yahoo.com]
                            Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 12:05 PM
                            To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                            Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                          •  
                            On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 9:50 AM, John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com> wrote:

                            The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                             
                            Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.

                            Where can we read up on more details of this system?  It sounds similar in spirit to Ranganathan's Colon system, which has 5 top-level facets: Personality, Matter/Property, Energy, Space, Time.

                                         -s



                             


                          • Matt Moore
                            Leonard, What would appear on your list? Cheers, Matt
                            Message 13 of 22 , Nov 2, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Leonard,

                              What would appear on your list?

                              Cheers,

                              Matt

                            • Patrick Lambe
                              Hi Matt As I m sure you know, I discuss a range of candidates for facets in my book Organising Knowledge. For a very good discussion and some excellent
                              Message 14 of 22 , Nov 3, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi Matt

                                As I'm sure you know, I discuss a range of candidates for facets in my book Organising Knowledge. For a very good discussion and some excellent references see William Denton's paper How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web http://www.miskatonic.org/library/facet-web-howto.html - the Spiteri reference in particular is worth checking out, for the principles of facet identification. Denton's piece provides a nice bridge between the information science and facets in use, with some good examples.

                                The nice thing about facets is that there are only a finite number to choose from, however one wants to slice the world. More important it seems to me(and we lose sight of this sometimes) is which of the possible candidates should we select and why? That means finding a way of determining salience and usefulness for your taxonomy "customers". What is each facet going to do for you? It's not always about findability - facets can also serve content management functions (it's a content type: press release, therefore it needs to be routed for approval).

                                Best

                                Patrick

                                Patrick Lambe

                                website: www.straitsknowledge.com

                                Have you seen our KM Method Cards or
                                Organisation Culture Cards?  





                                On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:05 AM, Matt Moore wrote:


                                John,

                                So where is this definitive list? References please!

                                Cheers,

                                Matt


                                From: John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com>
                                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 12:50:05 AM
                                Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                                 

                                Good morning, Matt;
                                 
                                The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                                 
                                Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.
                                 
                                Hope that helps.
                                 
                                John O'
                                 
                                 
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture @...]
                                Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 04:40 AM
                                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                Subject: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                              •  
                                John,

                                So where is this definitive list? References please!

                                Cheers,

                                Matt


                                From: John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com>
                                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 12:50:05 AM
                                Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                                 

                                 

                                Good morning, Matt;
                                 
                                The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                                 
                                Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.
                                 
                                Hope that helps.
                                 
                                John O'
                                 
                                 
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture @...]
                                Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 04:40 AM
                                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                Subject: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                                 

                                Hello,

                                I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
                                - Products
                                - Customers/Clients/ Stakeholders
                                - Business Units
                                - Locations
                                - Processes
                                - Projects

                                Any further suggestions?

                                Regards,

                                Matt


                                 

                                 

                                Hello,

                                I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
                                - Products
                                - Customers/Clients/ Stakeholders
                                - Business Units
                                - Locations
                                - Processes
                                - Projects

                                Any further suggestions?

                                Regards,

                                Matt




                              • Matt Moore
                                Patrick, This is all true but I ve a lot of conceptual material around facet methods (how one should construct them, how one should apply them) - what I m
                                Message 15 of 22 , Nov 3, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Patrick,

                                  This is all true but I've a lot of conceptual material around facet methods (how one should construct them, how one should apply them) - what I'm interested in is how facets are actually applied (or not) in organisations - which facets are used, why & how. In fact, I sense a survey coming on here (but I am sorting out some of the details in my head at the moment).

                                  And yes, I agree, facets can also serve content management functions as well as findability...

                                  Cheers,

                                  Matt


                                  From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
                                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 8:29:36 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                                   

                                  Hi Matt


                                  As I'm sure you know, I discuss a range of candidates for facets in my book Organising Knowledge. For a very good discussion and some excellent references see William Denton's paper How to Make a Faceted Classification and Put It On the Web http://www.miskaton ic.org/library/ facet-web- howto.html - the Spiteri reference in particular is worth checking out, for the principles of facet identification. Denton's piece provides a nice bridge between the information science and facets in use, with some good examples.

                                  The nice thing about facets is that there are only a finite number to choose from, however one wants to slice the world. More important it seems to me(and we lose sight of this sometimes) is which of the possible candidates should we select and why? That means finding a way of determining salience and usefulness for your taxonomy "customers". What is each facet going to do for you? It's not always about findability - facets can also serve content management functions (it's a content type: press release, therefore it needs to be routed for approval).

                                  Best

                                  Patrick

                                  Patrick Lambe

                                  website: www.straitsknowledg e.com

                                  Have you seen our KM Method Cards or
                                  Organisation Culture Cards?  





                                  On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:05 AM, Matt Moore wrote:


                                  John,

                                  So where is this definitive list? References please!

                                  Cheers,

                                  Matt


                                  From: John O'Gorman <jogorman@tiberon- ia.com>
                                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                  Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 12:50:05 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                                   

                                  Good morning, Matt;
                                   
                                  The definitive list of primary facets (a facet being defined as a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of related entities) has nineteen entries - all of which are semantically consistent with the exchange of information between two parties. In other words, primary facets have to do with Agents (people and organizations) , Assets (digital, conceptual and physical), Locations (coordinate, named and relative), Actions (activities, events, processes and tasks), Functions (disciplines, roles and uses) and finally States (cycle, point, span and status). 
                                   
                                  Secondary, tertiary and quaternary facets can be created by combining primary facets, using a mechanism analogous to the one for creating molecules or compounds in chemistry.
                                   
                                  Hope that helps.
                                   
                                  John O'
                                   
                                   
                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: Matt Moore [mailto:innotecture @...]
                                  Sent: Monday, November 2, 2009 04:40 AM
                                  To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups .com
                                  Subject: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                                   

                                  Hello,

                                  I'm curious as to what the most commonly used facets within an enterprise taxonomy might be. The ones that come to mind are:
                                  - Products
                                  - Customers/Clients/ Stakeholders
                                  - Business Units
                                  - Locations
                                  - Processes
                                  - Projects

                                  Any further suggestions?

                                  Regards,

                                  Matt





                                • Leonard Will
                                  On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 16:23:51, Matt Moore wrote ... I don t think that it is possible to have a definitive list that suits all
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Nov 3, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 16:23:51, Matt Moore <innotecture@...> wrote
                                    >Leonard,
                                    >
                                    >What would appear on your list?
                                    >
                                    >Cheers,
                                    >
                                    >Matt

                                    I don't think that it is possible to have a "definitive" list that suits
                                    all circumstances. The references Patrick Lambe has given discuss the
                                    reasons.

                                    Two issues are sometimes confused when discussing facets:

                                    1. The need to distinguish between

                                    * "facets" (sometimes called "fundamental facets"), which are the
                                    mutually exclusive categories we are talking about here, such as
                                    objects, materials, activities, places, abstract concepts, and so on,

                                    and

                                    * "characteristics of division", such as "colour" or "age" which are
                                    used to subdivide a facet into _arrays_, headed by a "node label" such
                                    as "automobiles by colour" or "people by age"; these would be part of
                                    the "objects" or "people" facets respectively.


                                    2. The fact that in specifying a citation order of facets in a compound
                                    subject you may have to list a single facet more than once, depending on
                                    its role. For example, in the CRG / BC2 list quoted in William Denton's
                                    paper

                                    * thing/entity
                                    * kind
                                    * part
                                    * property
                                    * material
                                    * process
                                    * operation
                                    * patient
                                    * product
                                    * by-product
                                    * agent
                                    * space
                                    * time

                                    terms from the "people" facet may be used as both "patient" and "agent",
                                    and terms from the "object" facet may be used as "thing", "product",
                                    "by-product", and so on. This makes is difficult to specify a consistent
                                    combination order which can be mechanised based solely on the names of
                                    facets - the entries in the above list are not really names of facets in
                                    the sense defined in 1 above..

                                    This issue is not so much of a problem in post-coordinate applications,
                                    but as this list is talking about "taxonomies" (i.e. classification
                                    schemes), rather than thesauri, I presume that some pre-coordination
                                    will often be required.

                                    3. It is difficult to find a term to name a facet to which people and
                                    organisations both belong: "agent" can give the misleading impression
                                    that it needs to be the pro-active member in a process; "actor" is
                                    liable to misinterpretation. Has anyone found a good term for this?

                                    Leonard

                                    --
                                    Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                                    Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                                    27 Calshot Way L.Will@...
                                    ENFIELD Sheena.Will@...
                                    EN2 7BQ, UK http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/
                                  • John O'Gorman
                                    Leonard, you raise some of the issues that I believe have been resolved with the development of Q6. BTW, I m being deliberately provocative here to elicit
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Nov 3, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Leonard, you raise some of the issues that I believe have been resolved with the development of Q6. BTW, I'm being deliberately provocative here to elicit these kinds of comments and I really appreciate the dialog.
                                       
                                      Q6 insists on a fixed set of facets for a number of reasons, the primary one so that non-taxonomists cannot begin to develop their own. Think of it like rules of the game...chess for example has a definitive set of rules, otherwise it wouldn't be a game.  The secondary reason is to force an alternative method for managing the 'characteristics of division' Leonard mentions below.
                                       
                                      First of all, a unique value can only appear once and only on one facet. That means that Matt Moore, Leonard Will, Heather Heddon,  Stavros Macrakis, Patrick Lambe and John O'Gorman are data points on the Person facet. If another Leonard Will comes along and is proven to be different than the current version, he will be added as a unique (in the sense of identitiy) value on the Person facet.
                                       
                                      The same process is repeated for all facets, so the words 'Customer', 'Client', 'Supplier', 'Curmudgeon', 'Analyst' and 'Patient' would be added to the 'Role' facet. This is initially one of the more difficult concepts to grasp, because most data modellers would put these on the 'Person' facet. Putting them on a separate facet, though, makes them much more useful. Now, anyone on the Person facet can have multiple Roles simply by allowing a one-to-many relationship between Person and Role.  You don't have duplicate people in different roles which makes things much, much easier to manage. I'm compacting concepts here, but hopefully you get the jist.
                                       
                                      The reason I believe this model will be of interest to the taxonomy community is because it gives us a whole new tool set for not only classifying data and by extension content, but for actively promoting initiatives like The Semantic Web and Master Data Management to name only two. The traditional method of assigning one entity to one place in a taxonomy is still valid and useful. However, when organizing very large - and potentially volatile - collections, the Q6 method assigns all of the names, terms, strings and values to common facets, then uses fairly rigid rules for combining the values into 'new' entities. In other words, it provides a very stable framework for managing what is currently a very chaotic universe of information.
                                       
                                      One final point if I may. Point #3 in your post points to an interesting dillema in the classification process: what to 'name' things and when to expose the names.  I used 'Agent' as a primary facet name, but I have never exposed it my clients and for the same reason that both Leonard and Matt have mentioned. I don't sweat it any more, though - I just use whatever label they are comfortable with...developers use this technique all the time.
                                       
                                      Cheers,
                                       
                                      John O'
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Leonard Will [mailto:L.Will@...]
                                      Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2009 04:00 AM
                                      To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Most common facets used within organisations

                                       

                                      On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 at 16:23:51, Matt Moore <innotecture@ yahoo.com> wrote
                                      >Leonard,
                                      >
                                      >What would appear on your list?
                                      >
                                      >Cheers,
                                      >
                                      >Matt

                                      I don't think that it is possible to have a "definitive" list that suits
                                      all circumstances. The references Patrick Lambe has given discuss the
                                      reasons.

                                      Two issues are sometimes confused when discussing facets:

                                      1. The need to distinguish between

                                      * "facets" (sometimes called "fundamental facets"), which are the
                                      mutually exclusive categories we are talking about here, such as
                                      objects, materials, activities, places, abstract concepts, and so on,

                                      and

                                      * "characteristics of division", such as "colour" or "age" which are
                                      used to subdivide a facet into _arrays_, headed by a "node label" such
                                      as "automobiles by colour" or "people by age"; these would be part of
                                      the "objects" or "people" facets respectively.

                                      2. The fact that in specifying a citation order of facets in a compound
                                      subject you may have to list a single facet more than once, depending on
                                      its role. For example, in the CRG / BC2 list quoted in William Denton's
                                      paper

                                      * thing/entity
                                      * kind
                                      * part
                                      * property
                                      * material
                                      * process
                                      * operation
                                      * patient
                                      * product
                                      * by-product
                                      * agent
                                      * space
                                      * time

                                      terms from the "people" facet may be used as both "patient" and "agent",
                                      and terms from the "object" facet may be used as "thing", "product",
                                      "by-product" , and so on. This makes is difficult to specify a consistent
                                      combination order which can be mechanised based solely on the names of
                                      facets - the entries in the above list are not really names of facets in
                                      the sense defined in 1 above..

                                      This issue is not so much of a problem in post-coordinate applications,
                                      but as this list is talking about "taxonomies" (i.e. classification
                                      schemes), rather than thesauri, I presume that some pre-coordination
                                      will often be required.

                                      3. It is difficult to find a term to name a facet to which people and
                                      organisations both belong: "agent" can give the misleading impression
                                      that it needs to be the pro-active member in a process; "actor" is
                                      liable to misinterpretation. Has anyone found a good term for this?

                                      Leonard

                                      --
                                      Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                                      Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                                      27 Calshot Way L.Will@Willpowerinf o.co.uk
                                      ENFIELD Sheena.Will@ Willpowerinfo. co.uk
                                      EN2 7BQ, UK http://www.willpowe rinfo.co. uk/

                                    • Gabriel Tanase
                                      Leonard, all, In the data(base) conceptual modeling arena is the most frequently used term, as a super-type of both Person and Organisation. See
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Leonard, all,

                                        In the data(base) conceptual modeling arena <Party> is the most frequently used term, as a super-type of both Person and Organisation. See Silverston's books on Data Model Patterns.
                                        Furthermore, the concept of <Party Role> is closely associated with <Party>.

                                        E.g. a "Customer" is a <Party Role>, i.e. the role that a <Person> party (Joe SixPack) plays in the context of an <Company> organization party (ACME Inc., whose customer Joe SixPack becomes at a given point in time).
                                        The role of <Customer> may or may not depend on the existence of a legal arrangement (contract) between the company Party and the person Party.
                                        A <Party Role> is always related to a <Party> that plays that role in a specific context of at least one other <Party>.


                                        Admittedly, as a term <Party> is not much better than <Agent> or <Actor>.
                                        The conceptual data models make heavy use of subtyping under both <Party> and <Party Role> to represent the usual business terms of Customer, Supplier, Service Provider, Beneficiary, Company, Not-for-Profit Organization, Household etc. etc.


                                        Regards,
                                        Gabriel
                                        http://www.linkedin.com/in/gabrieltanase


                                        2009/11/3 Leonard Will <L.Will@...>  
                                        [...]
                                        3. It is difficult to find a term to name a facet to which people and
                                        organisations both belong: "agent" can give the misleading impression
                                        that it needs to be the pro-active member in a process; "actor" is
                                        liable to misinterpretation. Has anyone found a good term for this?

                                        Leonard

                                        --
                                        Willpower Information     (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                                        Information Management Consultants            Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                                        27 Calshot Way                              L.Will@...
                                        ENFIELD                                Sheena.Will@...
                                        EN2 7BQ, UK                            http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/




                                      • Leonard Will
                                        On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 at 10:01:31, Gabriel Tanase wrote ... Gabriel - Thanks. I have come across this use of , and perhaps it is the
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Nov 4, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 at 10:01:31, Gabriel Tanase <gabtanase@...>
                                          wrote
                                          >Leonard, all,
                                          >
                                          >In the data(base) conceptual modeling arena <Party> is the most
                                          >frequently used term, as a super-type of both Person and Organisation.
                                          >See Silverston's books on Data Model Patterns. Furthermore, the concept
                                          >of <Party Role> is closely associated with <Party>.
                                          >
                                          >E.g. a "Customer" is a <Party Role>, i.e. the role that a <Person>
                                          >party (Joe SixPack) plays in the context of an <Company> organization
                                          >party (ACME Inc., whose customer Joe SixPack becomes at a given point
                                          >in time). The role of <Customer> may or may not depend on the existence
                                          >of a legal arrangement (contract) between the company Party and the
                                          >person Party. A <Party Role> is always related to a <Party> that plays
                                          >that role in a specific context of at least one other <Party>.
                                          >
                                          >Admittedly, as a term <Party> is not much better than <Agent> or
                                          ><Actor>. The conceptual data models make heavy use of subtyping under
                                          >both <Party> and <Party Role> to represent the usual business terms of
                                          >Customer, Supplier, Service Provider, Beneficiary, Company,
                                          >Not-for-Profit Organization, Household etc. etc.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >Regards,
                                          >Gabriel

                                          Gabriel -

                                          Thanks. I have come across this use of <party>, and perhaps it is the
                                          best term we can find for the job - so long as it is clear to everybody
                                          what it means.

                                          I see that the CIDOC relational data model, at

                                          <http://cidoc.mediahost.org/data-model%28en%29%28E73%29.xml>

                                          uses PEOPLE as the overall type, with

                                          PEOPLE-PERSON
                                          and
                                          PEOPLE-GROUP

                                          for individuals and groups respectively. These are rather cumbersome,
                                          but I suppose that GROUP is more general than "organisation" as a group
                                          may not be "organised".

                                          <Party role> is more difficult, because we have to decide whether to
                                          treat it as a coordination or link between separate PARTY and ROLE
                                          facets,

                                          e.g. "PARTY" & "ROLE"

                                          or whether to treat ROLE as a characteristic of division, giving an
                                          array within the PARTY facet introduced by the node label

                                          <Party by role>

                                          In neither case can it be used as a simple element of a citation order
                                          formula for expressing compound subjects, because its location in such a
                                          sequence will depend on the nature of the role.

                                          Leonard

                                          --
                                          Willpower Information (Partners: Dr Leonard D Will, Sheena E Will)
                                          Information Management Consultants Tel: +44 (0)20 8372 0092
                                          27 Calshot Way L.Will@...
                                          ENFIELD Sheena.Will@...
                                          EN2 7BQ, UK http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/
                                        • stephaniefkmg
                                          This has been a fascinating discussion, weaving between business uses and theoretical concepts. I ll be summarizing the main points in a blog post next week
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Nov 5, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            This has been a fascinating discussion, weaving between business uses and theoretical concepts.

                                            I'll be summarizing the main points in a blog post next week and on the TaxoCoP wiki, quoting from this discussion.

                                            If any of the participants prefer not being quoted, please email me at stephanie@...

                                            Thanks!
                                            S.
                                          • Nick Berry
                                            These are not just facets - they are also master data elements that typically end up in data warehouses for business intelligence purposes. Right now we re
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Nov 5, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              These are not just facets - they are also master data elements that typically end up in data warehouses for business intelligence purposes.  Right now we're spearheading an MDM initiative, and our top "facets" or entities are:
                                              • Customer (attributes include name, address/location, activities, purchases, member/nonmember, etc)
                                              • Article (which is the same as Product - attributes include size, color, price, fabric/material, brand, gender, seasonality, status, etc...but an Article could be a rain jacket or an Adventure Trip or a ski rental)
                                              • Site (refers to stores, channels, distribution centers, trailheads, etc; attributes include name, location, type, etc)
                                              • Vendor (includes manufacturers, distributors, etc; attributes are name, address, associated Articles, etc)

                                              We are applying standard IA principles to these elements - interviewing users to understand their needs, doing inventories of the data and how it is used, setting up taxonomies to manage relationships between facets and attributes, etc.  Except in the MDM world these tasks are called data profiling, data integration, data quality, data governance, etc.  

                                              If there are other people on this list doing MDM and/or BI, I'd love to chat with you about data governance, org structure, tools, etc. 

                                              Cheers,
                                              Nick

                                              nick berry, content architect & taxonomist

                                              Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI)

                                              253-437-7860 (p) / 253-395-8201 (f)




                                              On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM, stephaniefkmg <stephanie@...> wrote:
                                               

                                              This has been a fascinating discussion, weaving between business uses and theoretical concepts.

                                              I'll be summarizing the main points in a blog post next week and on the TaxoCoP wiki, quoting from this discussion.

                                              If any of the participants prefer not being quoted, please email me at stephanie@...

                                              Thanks!
                                              S.


                                            • John O'Gorman
                                              Hey Nick; I m up for that conversation. Connecting the concepts of faceted classification, master data management and business intelligence is brilliant - and
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Nov 5, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hey Nick;
                                                 
                                                I'm up for that conversation. Connecting the concepts of faceted classification, master data management and business intelligence is brilliant - and where, incidentally, I believe information management will be going in the very near future.
                                                 
                                                If I may, I have a couple of observations for the group. Hopefully I haven't worn out my welcome...
                                                 
                                                First, in my world a facet is just a way to organize a fixed number of lists - stand alone columns, if you will - of related entities.  The difference with Q6 is that there are no assumptions about how the values in the lists will be used. For example, the words Manufacturer, Supplier, Distributor and Vendor are all values on the Roles list. Just the words, not the companies.  Likewise, all the companies important to my enterprise appear on the Organizations list. In order to keep all of these lists completely 'decoupled' no other attributes appear on the list. This is where Nick's MDM connection comes in.
                                                 
                                                Second, building faceted tables now becomes a matter of associating the entities from individual lists to each other as needed. So, for example, I can now create an association between a given organization and an address (street or lat /long) and a Role. Likewise for Persons in the Role of Customer.  I can extend this approach to create associations between Persons in my Customer table with Articles in my Products table.  I can also do interesting things like give one Organization multiple Roles so that Acme Recreation Inc can be a Manufacturer, Distributor and Vendor at the same time.
                                                 
                                                Finally, one recommendation about Location. It is tempting to make things like trails, stores, distribution centres and huts 'Locations', but in Q6 - while these and all other 'fixed' assets have a strong location aspect - they are in fact Physical Assets with a Location association.  Trust me on this one...your BI reports will come out much nicer if you separate the asset from its coordinates.
                                                 
                                                Best of luck, Nick and if you want to talke more, please contact me off-list.
                                                 
                                                John O'
                                                 
                                                 
                                                 
                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: Nick Berry [mailto:infoglutton@...]
                                                Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2009 09:36 AM
                                                To: TaxoCoP@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: Re: [TaxoCoP] Re: Most common facets used within organisations

                                                 

                                                These are not just facets - they are also master data elements that typically end up in data warehouses for business intelligence purposes.  Right now we're spearheading an MDM initiative, and our top "facets" or entities are:

                                                • Customer (attributes include name, address/location, activities, purchases, member/nonmember, etc)
                                                • Article (which is the same as Product - attributes include size, color, price, fabric/material, brand, gender, seasonality, status, etc...but an Article could be a rain jacket or an Adventure Trip or a ski rental)
                                                • Site (refers to stores, channels, distribution centers, trailheads, etc; attributes include name, location, type, etc)
                                                • Vendor (includes manufacturers, distributors, etc; attributes are name, address, associated Articles, etc)

                                                We are applying standard IA principles to these elements - interviewing users to understand their needs, doing inventories of the data and how it is used, setting up taxonomies to manage relationships between facets and attributes, etc.  Except in the MDM world these tasks are called data profiling, data integration, data quality, data governance, etc.  

                                                If there are other people on this list doing MDM and/or BI, I'd love to chat with you about data governance, org structure, tools, etc. 

                                                Cheers,
                                                Nick

                                                nick berry, content architect & taxonomist

                                                Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI)

                                                253-437-7860 (p) / 253-395-8201 (f)




                                                On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 12:49 AM, stephaniefkmg <stephanie@earley. com> wrote:
                                                 

                                                This has been a fascinating discussion, weaving between business uses and theoretical concepts.

                                                I'll be summarizing the main points in a blog post next week and on the TaxoCoP wiki, quoting from this discussion.

                                                If any of the participants prefer not being quoted, please email me at stephanie@earley. com

                                                Thanks!
                                                S.


                                                 

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