<ISO 15489 *IS* hierarchical.>
Yes, but it is not to be implemented in a generic>specific
mutually-exclusive -categories way. That's what is misleading about the
Australian diagram. It implies that you can pre-define contexts during
scheme creation (the same way a taxonomic structure pre-defines
subjects) then classifiers simply apply the top-down generic-to-specific
categories in a strictly top-down way as per the pre-designed scheme.
That is no different from taxonomic classification. What makes
functional classification different is that users can move up and down
the pre-designed hierarchies (designed through business process
analysis) and apply what they need, where they need it to capture their
unique context. They are not forced to stick to one route in a downward
direction, down a strict path. For example, if some lower-level process
does HR tasks then they can borrow the structure from the higher level
HR admin function (which is nicely and elaborately detailed to many
levels by HR professionals - as it is in Canada's BASCS functional
scheme) . Users insert the HR levels and facets, as they see fit, at
their lower level business function to capture the unique kind of "HR"
work that they might do. If there's a facet of Information Management
Work in this 'HR" work that they do then can borrow form the high-level
admin function "Information Management". As they see fit, to capture the
uniqueness of their version of that type of work. Which they own, not
the Information Management folks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Records Management Program [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of John Lovejoy
Sent: March 8, 2006 5:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [RM] Hierarchical taxonomies [was Nebraska ARMA Training March
22, 200 6 "Demystifying Taxonomies"]
Maureen
A functional classification scheme as recommended by ISO 15489 *IS*
hierarchical.
At the top level, you have "Functions", then the next level describes
"Activities". Below that you can have all sorts of things, depending on
the
context - disposal classes, records descriptions, transactions, records,
recordkeeping requirements, human actions, subjects, etc.
The business classification scheme *SHOULD* reflect the context of the
record, because it *SHOULD* reflect the business of the organisation.
More information on the National Archives of Australia's approach is in
their "Overview of Classification Tools for Records Management"
available at
http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/control/tools.html. It complies with
the
requirements of AS 15489.
John Lovejoy
[log in to unmask]
I speak for me, not them, but I may have had some input into the
production
of the cited publication.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cusack, Maureen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [RM] Nebraska ARMA Training March 22, 2006 "Demystifying
Taxonomies"
A little sanity please:
A taxonomy is a hierarchical classification scheme. The industry
standard and best practice today is functional (business) classification
schemes, not hierarchical. ISO 15489. The reason is that functions-based
approach captures the context of a record. This context clarifies why a
record exists, what it is connected to, what it supports, what it's
scope is, what its intended usage is. Context is essential to records
because records are evidence of organizational activities and decisions.
Records represent human activity and decisions. They can only represent
what actually transpired if they are allowed to capture the unique
facets that together make up the meaning or context of that record. That
context is their evidentiary value. Hierarchical schemes destroy context
because they are pre-determined artificial constructs imposed on the
reality of an organization's activities, transactions, decisions.
Out-of-the-box taxonomies are even further divorced from an
organization's reality. The context of a record equals its evidentiary
value. Context cannot be pre-determined in a scheme or anywhere else
(well, maybe with a crystal ball). The context of a record clarifies the
reason a record exists, how the activity/decision represented relates to
other activities, all the way up and across a scheme to the main
function of the organization - the reason the organization exists.
Facets of a record makes these connections. Facets, like context itself,
cannot be pre-determined. Records are evidence of organizational
activities and decisions. They are not artifacts with meaning on their
own divorced from human activity and decisions.
Records Management Website
http://teamsites/sites/Records_Management/default.aspx
Maureen Cusack | Smart Systems for Health Agency
desk phone: 416.586.4012 | cell: 416.854.4987 | fax: 416.586.4398
[log in to unmask]
415 Yonge Street, Suite 1900 | Toronto, ON M5B 2E7 | www.ssha.on.ca |
www.maureencusack.net
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
