 
| Sender: |
|
| Date: |
Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:53:46 -0400 |
| Content-Disposition: |
inline |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Comments: |
RFC822 error: <W> Incorrect or incomplete address field found and
ignored. |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
There is precious little out there right now on how to actually build a records management taxonomy (functional/typological). There is a great deal on building library-type taxonomies (subject based). Most of the material describes various things about taxonomies, but don't help with building them. My book, when it comes out this October, has a section on this and I am currently writing another book just on taxonomies. Beware of the difference between library-based and records management taxonomies because the focus for each is entirely different and the methods are different. Even books with enticing titles like "The Organization of Information" are just college textbooks about library classification that might mention the phrase records management, but do not describe it.
You mention correspondence. What is the focus and the purpose of the classification system you want to build?
Best wishes,
Carol
Carol E.B. Choksy, Ph.D., CRM
CEO
IRAD Strategic Consulting, Inc.
(317)294-8329
Adjunct Professor
School of Library and Information Science
Indiana University, Bloomington
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
|
|
