Ten Taxonomy Myths

The Montague Institute gives us 10 taxonomy myths to dispel, so you can get past the hype and correctly grok how taxonomies will really work for you.

    Taxonomies have recently emerged from the quiet backwaters of biology, book indexing, and library science into the corporate limelight. They are supposed to be the silver bullets that will help users find the needle in the intranet haystack, reduce "friction" in electronic commerce, facilitate scientific research, and promote global collaboration. But before this can happen, practitioners need to dispel the myths and confusion, created in part by the multi-disciplinary nature of the task and the hype surrounding content management technologies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

People and documents

#7 is interesting:

Myth #7: It's OK to create separate taxonomies for people and documents

I wonder what they're getting at here. Is it wrong to separate taxonomies for different facets, e.g. Subject, People, Places, Format, etc. I have taken the view that metadata structures that differentiate facets for description imply that separate controlled vocabularies will apply for each facet -- separate taxonomies. Seems like Montague has a view of an integrated hierarchy (single or poly) -- a single tree. Do they mean that structurally, Subject, People, Places, etc. belong in one controlled vocabulary?