This looks like an interesting exercise, and it's one that is oddly apropos to my MSIS course-work; two semesters ago I took Information Architecture and I am currently in a Knowledge Organization seminar where we have just covered Linnaeus.
Looking at @TimSlavin's post I am very much reminded of Vickery's "Classification and Indexing in Science". Appendix A of his work is dedicated to a discussion of the historical aspects of the classification of science, and his conclusions seem evident in the above list - I forwarded it to my Knowledge Organization professor and said it looked to me more like a taxonomy specific to a webpage redesign. And there's nothing wrong with that because it is probably a reaction to an historical trend (or, a concept that has lately been percolating in my mind, natural selection of knowledge). But I think that a taxonomic methodology that doesn't take a wide historic view of IA will fail to miss the larger brush-strokes of the field, and consequently fail to miss some of the wider classifications and hierarchies within the field. I think that it is also fair to say it is worth figuring out which taxonomic approach might be the best fit for the field. Do we go for the IA equivalent Linnaean Taxonomy or go the phylogenetic systemics (cladistic) route? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Posted from the new ixda.org http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=49398 ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [email protected] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
