Carol Choksy has provided a great synopsis. Here's how I introduce taxomonies (note introduce, not define - as Carol says, that's a book...and one underway ;-) * An arrangement of general groupings that is divided into logical sub-groupings * The arrangement is general to the specific (sound familiar?) to the degree necessary for a given purpose and operational environment. * In IM, it is a reflection of a domain, business or function and enables a systematic interpretation of that domain, business or function to support one or more purposes. The purpose and environment are key, which is why you cannot take a taxonomy developed for one purpose and apply it to another. Is your purpose to support navigation? Is is descriptive? prescriptive? both? Further to Laurie's observation, I think it really depends on what one is trying to achieve. From an enterprise wide view, taxonomies - better ontologies - are absolutely what I expect from records managers. Further to Carol's observation on KM 10 years back, I'd say that within organizations KM was more fad than reality (with respect to my colleague Leif Edvinsson who was the first CKO - I might pay for that remark next week ;-) Vendors jumped on a marketing bandwagon and some people think KM is dead, just when its connectino to IC is begining to shift some thinking in the world. (I prefer the term knowledge resource development as this neatly marries both information and human resources - technology is an enabler, IMHO, where it doesn't actively inhibit!) The RIM world is increasingly complex (as we say, complex does not have to be complicated). Taxonomies are a means to represent that world and enable decision making on everything from common language to codifiable elements that can add value to business (e.g. compliance needs, IP protection, etc.). Our field, however, runs the gamut from simple file systems to highly structured taxonomies, and more rarely, ontological systems that enable relationship mapping. Very interested in this last idea - but step by step! As a last comment in a busy day, I'll stick my neck out and say that while many, many organizations get good value out of reactive RM shops that successfully apply traditional concepts to ERM, etc., it is my firm believe that we need more RM practitioners who are prepared to risk proaction, making real contributions to bringing RM into the boardroom, and delivering value for business. That's my view ;-) Cheers- John John James O'Brien, BA, CRM, MALT Partner & Principal Consultant IRM Strategies http://www.irmstrategies.com Hong Kong - Bangkok - Vancouver Associate Partner, S4K Research, Stockholm http://www.s4k.com [log in to unmask] List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance