The link to the website with the presentation at the bottom doesn't work


>From: Jim Connelly <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Records Management Program <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [RM] Sample Taxonomies
>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:51:29 -0600
>
>Weighing in late ... with a few comments on taxonomies
>
>In the eighties, Canadian governments developed taxonomies based primarily
>on known  subject areas, the federal GRDS was an example and the BC
>ARCS/ORCS and Alberta ARDA were provincial examples.  For the most part
>these were simplistic but workable systems and they were focused on the 
>hard
>copy world.
>
>In the nineties a trend towards function based taxonomies was seen.  Even
>the ISO15489 "suggests" that functional designs may be more durable and
>effective.   These systems satisfy archives and RM staff in that they can
>easily be mapped to retentions, but in most of the "real world" ... these
>function based systems have yet to be proven as effective and user-friendly
>systems.  (In Scottish law there can be 3 verdicts - Guilty - Not Proven -
>Innocent.)  Most of the anecdotal evidence that I have seen to date 
>suggests
>that users are not impressed with most of the functional designs with which
>they are presented.  And as audits continue in some jurisdictions, there is
>mounting evidence that something is missing.   Some work was done in 
>Britain
>regarding hybrid designs in the nineties ...., Malcolm Todd's article (UK
>Archives) was particularly impressive.  I did enjoy Carol Choksy's IMJ
>article also, as it was very thorough and will help many organizations
>develop better designs, but I remain unconvinced that the methodology
>outlined therein is appropriate for the current business environment.
>
>I believe there are three (3) reasons why our functional systems run into
>problems.  One is that in most commonly used methodologies, users are not
>sufficiently consulted or engaged in the design process.  The second reason
>is that the records management world is now primarily electronic and that
>ECMs and file server structures and needs (mapping, security, naming etc)
>are not taken into consideration. A third reason is that the relationship
>between developing business architectures and document architectures
>(taxonomies) is not being defined and developed.
>
>In the past 5 years, I have yet to encounter an organization that had less
>than 70% of its unstructured information in electronic form in various
>servers/domains.  In designing systems, new methods of document inventory
>and analysis of server structures is necessary.  Even though the old
>inventory methods are needed for hard copy and remain valid, most taxonomy
>designers do not delve sufficiently into the depths of our file servers.
>Also, when mapping function based or hybrid taxonomies to these structures,
>serious adjustments have to be made to naming, abbreviating and identifying
>documents or files.   Considerable work remains in these areas before RM 
>can
>hope to be relevant in the electronic work environment.
>
>On my web site www.cccrecords.com <http://www.cccrecords.com/>  is a link 
>to
>a pdf of a seminar on taxonomies, I gave some 6 months ago in Calgary ...
>some of the information may be useful to people working on taxonomy 
>designs.
>Also the link to Malcolm Todd's article is there as well.  Finally I
>apologize to John O'Brien in advance for not taking more space to delve 
>into
>the difference between ontologies, taxonomies and faceted classification
>systems :-)
>
>Regards
>
>Jim
>
>Jim Connelly, CRM
>[log in to unmask]
>8 Oakdale Place
>St. Albert, Alberta
>T8N 6K6
>1-780-460-7089
>
>List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
>Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
>To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already 
>present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the 
>message.
>mailto:[log in to unmask]

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]