[Taxonomy Bootcamp Takeaway] In a case study presentation Dave Clarke of Synaptica described how the Taxonomy Warehouse online directory had been re-engineered as an ontology.   Clarke said one of the essential differences between the legacy system and the new system is that in the old system, an information search terminated with results and individual records, whereas in the new system, there are no dead-ends: whatever you are looking at, the ontology provides new paths and more information discovery options.  Clarke gave an example where a search for a blog leads to a bio about the blogger, which then leads to a description of the company they work for.  This leads to information about products and services the company provides.  From here links to generic product and services types open the window on all the other companies providing similar products and services. Dave's presentation is available from: www.synapticasoftware.com/images/ReengineeringTWweb.pdf.

[Taxonomy Bootcamp 2011 Takaway] Joseph Busch of Project Performance Corporation (PPC) delivered a practical presentation that aimed to help people understand objective criteria for evaluating the capabilities of current taxonomy software tools.  PPC is a leading management consultancy with a growing taxonomy practice.   Busch analysed editorial functionality, degrees of sophistication, database definition, import and export options, and workflow and governance.  Busch then gave detailed descriptions for four specific products and summarized the results in a product vector with two axes: ease of implementation and completeness of vision.  Microsoft Excel scored top on ease of implementation but low on vision (functionality).  While MultiTes did not score high on either scale it was selected as a notable tool because its simplicity and low price point have established it as a prominent entry-level tool.   The three tools closest to the top-right quadrant were SmartLogic, Synaptica and TopBraid.  In Busch’s assessment these three tools are very close together, with each one having some distinguishing selling points. Joseph's presentation is available online at: www.taxonomystrategies.com/presentations/2011/Taxonomy%20Tools%20Requirements%20and%20Capabilities-Busch%20and%20Wahl.pdf.

[Taxonomy Bootcamp 2011 Takeaway] Zach Wahl of Project Performance Corporation (PPC) said that the average taxonomy application is deeper and more complex than five years ago, and so the need for more sophisticated taxonomy software tools is becoming widely recognized.  PPC is a leading management consultancy with a growing taxonomy practice.  Wahl’s comments drew upon observations of the evolution of RFP requirements over the last few years. Zach's presentation is available at: www.taxonomystrategies.com/presentations/2011/Taxonomy%20Tools%20Requirements%20and%20Capabilities-Busch%20and%20Wahl.pdf.

[Taxonomy Bootcamp 2011 Takeaway] KM patrician Patrick Lambe of Straits Knowledge gave a passionate talk about ‘empirical approaches to taxonomy’.  Drawing upon many battle-stories from his long experience in the KM consulting field, Lambe described how senior managers in many organizations often attempt to dictate the content and structure of taxonomies based on arbitrary whims and subjective opinions.  Imperious Lambe counters such meddling with an engagement model and strategy based on empirical taxonomy construction.  Lambe revealed how the testing and consulting processes of the empirical approach are supported by three compelling pillars: content warrant – the concepts and language found in the content; user warrant – the concepts and language that users bring to their searches; and de facto warrant – established domain authority files and schemes. Patrick's presentation is available for download at: http://www.greenchameleon.com/gc/blog_detail/an_empirical_approach_to_ta....

[Taxonomy Bootcamp 2011 Comment] While many organizations employ multiple software tools to perform similar functions, such as categorization, search, etc., this does not necessarily imply tool redundancy.  Particular tools have different strengths that are optimized for tackling different data sets or functional tasks within an enterprise.  There is, however, a very real need to orchestrate these tools.  Dave Clarke of Synaptica has long advocated that conceptual vocabularies combined with non-proprietary open standards are the key to unifying information that resides in disparate systems. Industry standards inform both the way vocabularies are constructed and the way they are interchanged.  Foremost among relevant norms is the brand new two-part ISO25964 standard (and its various national antecedents and implementations) and the W3C specifications SKOS and OWL.  Centralizing all controlled vocabularies into an enterprise vocabulary management tool allows different business units to maintain separate vocabularies while providing the means to 'wire' these different vocabularies together through mapping alignments.  For more information on the ISO standard visit: http://www.taxonomywarehouse.com/details.aspx?vunid=113659 and http://www.taxonomywarehouse.com/details.aspx?vunid=113662.