Full RSS Feed
Receive
the Free CMSWire NewsletterI find Microsoft’s advice regarding how to properly assemble a taxonomy somewhat nonsensical, but it’s because I love the Records and Information Management standard ISO 15489 so much. As you write your SharePoint 2010 Records Governance Plan, I recommend you consider the following.
Remember: to write a Records governance policy for SharePoint 2010, you need to read ISO 15489’s General Guidelines and the Technical Report. Get your copy of the general guidelines here. A link to the Technical Report is provided on that page.
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Microsoft reminds implementations teams that “putability” (the act of putting quality data accompanied by excellent metadata into information architecture) and “findability” (the quality of being easily retrieved) are linked to information architecture scalability and training. For Records colleagues, taxonomies mean classification — because ISO 15489 tells them so. From the General Report:
Classification of business activities acts as a powerful tool to assist the conduct of business and in many of the processes involved in the management of records, including:
- Providing linkages between individual records which accumulate to provide a continuous record of activity,
- Ensuring records are named in a consistent manner over time,
- Assisting in the retrieval of all records relating to a particular function or activity,
- Determining security protection and access appropriate for sets of records,
- Allocating user permissions for access to, or action on, particular groups of records,
- Distributing responsibility for management of particular sets of records,
- Distributing records for action, and
- Determining appropriate retention periods and disposition actions for records.
Folder linkages. Standard naming conventions. Fast retrieval. Access controls. Auditing and compliance. Distribution. Retention. If you’ve read your SharePoint 2010 source material, these words should sound familiar. You heard them in ISO 15489 first.
TFO
Beware (and this is strange): while Microsoft makes taxonomies in SharePoint 2010 complicated, it doesn’t seem to like folksonomies. “A taxonomy refers to a hierarchy or organization of objects that will likely include synonyms, equivalencies, parent/child relationships, and metadata. In contrast, a folksonomy can be thought of as a ‘free-form’ method of describing data without a hierarchy or an organization of terms from which to draw metadata values.” The description reeks of disapproval; however, in most organizations information architecture is honed by well-intentioned administrative professionals and analysts in real-time. While the implementation team is abroad discussing the importance of folder structures with this level of the organization, prepare to map. The architecture of SharePoint 2010 requires purposeful file planning.
But Are They Different?
Microsoft will tell you that there’s no clear definition of what information architecture is, but it asserts that business taxonomies are “buckets” that relate to organizational functions and policies, while content taxonomies (aka “operational taxonomies”) map to the business needs, user needs, technology support and relationships amongst the various types of content.
ISO 15489 is more elegant; of course the standard doesn’t make this distinction (why would it?), but it does advise you on the building process:
Continue reading this article:
Email It
