We have noted on other occasions that ‘formal taxonomies’ are under attack from various quarters. Presumably, classification schemes, thesauri, subject heading lists, authority files are equally destined for the scrap heap, as far as their detractors are concerned. Here’s what a recent blogger had to say [full post]:
“Traditional knowledge management relied on the skill of a privileged team of “knowledge architects” a priori defining information taxonomies, which organisations had to try and conform to in their day-to-day information creation and searching activities. The problem is that information is very rarely the kind of beast that’s happy to be tamed and confined within static structures: its structure and importance morph over time.”
It is indeed a characteristic of information that ‘its structure and importance morph over time’. But so do geographical features; that doesn’t prevent us from finding maps rather useful. People and organizations also morph over time and change their structural relationships, yet Yellow Pages, health records, electoral registers and product catalogues all seem to remain useful.
Yet, that’s a glib rebuff to a facile assertion. Formal KO disciplines are being relegated to the museum in favour of a brash, tag-as-you-go mentality. Are we so sure that they are wrong and we are right?
If your answer is ‘no’, then how would YOU suggest we accommodate both points-of-view?