Taxonomy Trends and Future

What are the trends in taxonomies, and where is the field going? The future of taxonomies turned out to be a unifying theme of last week’s annual Taxonomy Boot Camp conference, in Washington, DC, the premier event in taxonomies, from its opening keynote to its closing panel.

“From Cataloguer to Designer” was the title of the opening keynote, an excellent presentation by consultant Patrick Lambe of Straits Knowledge. He said that there are new opportunities for taxonomists, especially in the technology space, if they change their mindset and their role from that of cataloguers, who describe the world as it is, to that of designers, who plan things as they could be. New trends involving taxonomies that he described include search-based applications, autoclassification, and knowledge graphs (such as the automatically curated index card of key information on a topic, as appears in some Google search results).

As this was the 10th annual Taxonomy Boot Camp conference, the final session was “10 Years Back, 10 Years Forward,” a panel of consultants who had presented at the first Taxonomy Boot Camp conference in New York in 2004 (and at most of the conferences since), and who answered questions about how things of have changed and offered comments on various predictions.

The spread of greater understanding of taxonomies was a common theme of that panel. Gary Carlson of the consultancy Factor noted that now taxonomy can be discussed with the executives, whereas in the past only some people in an organization would show an interest in taxonomies. This was echoed by Seth Earley of Earley & Associates, who observed that organizations are beginning to understand that a taxonomy is more than just terms but is also a process: “Organizations are starting to get it.” Tom Reamy of KAPS Group recalled that in his earlier projects he had to help his clients strategize more to figure out how a taxonomy can help, but now they already know about taxonomies and just want to do it. He also pointed out that the early adopters of taxonomies were the large science and financial enterprises, but now smaller companies are also implementing taxonomies.

Looking to the future, the panelists’ shared predictions included greater use of linked data, taxonomy visualization, and text analytics. Joseph Busch of Taxonomy Strategies commented on the “power of re-use,” so that we will spend less time doing taxonomies on standard things, such as geographic places, and “not re-invent universals.” With respect to taxonomy visualization, he observed that it “helps people think.” Regarding text analytics, Tom Reamy, the conference’s biggest champion of the technology, explained that it fills the gap between the taxonomy and what it should do.

Other sessions, such as the panel “The Curious Lives of Full-Time Taxonomists” also addressed the issue of new themes in taxonomies. “Taxonomy is seeping into the culture, as part of the enterprise knowledge of the world, “explained Barbara McGlamery of Pearson. “People are asking for problem solving and not just a taxonomy, as they have more awareness of taxonomy,” observed Sarah Barrett of Factor.

New trends and technologies were discussed in individual presentations, too. Using the agile method for taxonomy development was described in two presentations: the main topic of “Using Agile to Build a Taxonomy/Ontology,” by Evelyn Kent of Smartlogic, and as a feature in “Developing Use Cases Before Developing the Taxonomy,” presented by Vivian Bliss of Taxonomy Strategies. Greater sophistication in sentiment analysis that enables leveraging of taxonomy was a key point in Tom Reamy’s presentation “Taxonomy and Social Media: Social Taxonomies.” Technology was also at the forefront sessions, such as “Taxonomies in Search” comprising four presentations, and “Automated Taxonomy Management,” comprising three presentations.

Finally, the growth in interest in taxonomies was reflected in the conference attendance (around 200). While exact numbers of attendees of Taxonomy Boot Camp cannot be counted, because some attendees have platinum passes allowing them the choice of co-located conference sessions to attend (including KM World and Enterprise Search & Discovery), Tom Hogan, CEO of Information Today Inc., the conference owner, informed me that dedicated Taxonomy Boot Camp registrations had doubled since last year and commented on how it had grown for just a small add-on to KM World, to a significant conference in its own right.

Taxonomy: A Profession, Not an Industry

I am looking forward to attending and presenting at my 8th Taxonomy Boot Camp conference next week. What makes this conference special is that it is very much both a professional and a commercial/industry conference, whereas most conferences tend to be one or the other. In other words, it is a commercial conference that serves a profession.

A professional conference is one that is usually organized by a nonprofit professional organization/society for its members for furthering the intellectual exchange in the field and otherwise serving the needs of its members. Professional conferences at which I have presented include those of SLA (Special Libraries Association) and the American Society for Indexing. A commercial conference, on the other hand, is one put on by a company (in publishing, advertising, research, consulting, or pure event management) to bring together clients and vendors in specialty area and promote business for all. Commercial conferences at which I have presented, in addition to those associated with KM World, include the Gilbane conference, Henry Stewart DAM, and Text Analytics World. Professional conferences do have vendor exhibits, too, but more as an aside to help finance the conference, and these exhibits can be very small. Commercial conferences do, of course, have informative and educational sessions, but the conference is organized with the primary purpose of earning a profit from selling exhibit space and registrations.

Commercial conferences are often based on an industry, with industry loosely defined as companies that sell related products or services for a defined market and thus potentially could be exhibiters. This “industry” could be as specialized as knowledge management, content management, or digital asset management. Taxonomy, however, is not an industry.

Taxonomy is a profession and is also an information management tool/technique. Sometimes an industry and a profession are almost the same, such as in medicine and law. Closer to the world of taxonomies are the industry/professions of software development, consulting, and librarianship. Taxonomy work comes closest to the latter, and many taxonomists were originally trained as librarians. So, if libraries are both an industry and a profession, then some might make the assumption that taxonomy is also both an industry and a profession.

To determine if there is an industry associated with a profession, to look at trade show/exhibit vendors at a conference or look for advertisement-supported trade journals. Taxonomy Boot Camp has a mini exhibit of usually half a dozen sponsors, in contrast with the co-located KM World conference showcase of over 30 sponsors. Indeed, commercial software vendors of pure taxonomy management tools (not a feature of a larger solution) can be counted on one hand. Taxonomy-related services, namely those of consultants, are also a significant business, but this cannot be considered its own “industry.” That is because any consulting firm (larger than a sole proprietorship) that consults on taxonomy also consults in other, related areas, such as knowledge management, data management, user experience design, content integration, etc. As for trade journals, there are none dedicated to taxonomy, simply because there are not enough companies that would advertise in this niche space. Libraries, on the other hand, do have lots of vendors, which exhibit at conferences, and there are also library trade journals.

Taxonomists work in all industries. I have worked in full-time permanent positions as a taxonomist in industries including publishing, software, consulting, and renewable energy, and have provided taxonomy consulting services to many more industries: financial services, retail, hospitality, biomedical research, manufacturing, and education. Despite my various industries of my employment, I have always applied the broad “Information services” or “Information technology and services” as my “industry” in my LinkedIn profile. For this reason, trying to analyze the industries used in taxonomist LinkedIn profiles might not be accurate or useful, due to the preference of those two industry designations. Nevertheless, I have found taxonomists in LinkedIn to use the following additional industries:

Libraries
Internet
Publishing
Research
Online Media
Higher Education
Computer Software
Public Relations & Communications
Marketing & Advertising
Management Consulting
Entertainment
Pharmaceuticals
Hospital & Health Care
Oil & energy

Indeed the Taxonomy Boot Camp conference has attendees from all of these varied industries, but all with a shared professional interest in taxonomies. That’s what makes this conference feel more like a professional conference. But unlike a professional conference (such as SLA for librarians, of which I am not, so I always feel like an outsider there) , you don’t have to be a member of an organization or professional taxonomist, just interested in taxonomies as a tool/technique. As such, the conference is both highly educational/informative, yet welcoming and open to all.

One or More Taxonomies

In the various definitions of taxonomy, one aspect of the definition that is often missing is what constitutes a single taxonomy (or thesaurus) versus multiple related taxonomies (or thesauri). If you hire a taxonomy consultant, they won’t tell you because they will defer to their client’s terminology. If you are designing a taxonomy/taxonomies for your own organization, however, this is often an issue of concern.

Hierarchies and other relationships

In simple hierarchical taxonomies, a single hierarchy could be a single taxonomy. Not all terms on the same subject, however, may fit neatly in one hierarchy while complying with ANSI/NISO hierarchical relationship guidelines. So, more often than not, a hierarchical taxonomy may have multiple top terms. For example, a taxonomy on health care might have top terms for hierarchies on conditions and diseases, diagnostic procedures, treatments, medical equipment and supplies. If for some reason you needed a single hierarchy, then you would bend the hierarchical-relationship rules to make such top terms narrower to the term that is the name of the taxonomy. Thus, whether there is one top term or multiple top terms, it is still considered one taxonomy.
Facets are a special case. Each facet consists of its own hierarchy of terms, or may even have multiple top-term hierarchies of similar-type terms on the same subject, and there are no relationships between terms in different facets. So, you might consider each facet to be a taxonomy. However, the facets are intended to be used only in combination, not in isolation. In fact, we often speak of a “faceted taxonomy,” implying a single taxonomy comprised of multiple facets. So, a single facet is not a taxonomy.

A more thesaurus-like structure, may have fewer large hierarchies and more smaller hierarchies with more numerous top terms, but it will also have associative relationships that link terms across hierarchies. So, a possible definition of a taxonomy or thesaurus is a set of terms where there is at least some kind of relationship between every term and at least one other in the same set. However, you could end up with a situation of just a couple of terms related to each other but none of them are related/linked to any other terms in the taxonomy. So, additional criteria are needed to define a single taxonomy as to include such terms.

Thus, at a minimum, a taxonomy comprises one or more hierarchies, but what about at a maximum? The question came up in my online course, in an assignment to create polyhierarchies, in which I suggest that the broader terms are from different hierarchies. A student asked: “Are the different hierarchies supposed to be within the same Taxonomy, or merely two different hierarchies from two different Taxonomies?” Generally, standard hierarchical and associative relationships do not transcend multiple taxonomies. An exception would be instance-type hierarchical relationships between topics in a taxonomy and named entities (proper nouns) maintained in a separate controlled vocabulary. Other types of relationships may link terms across multiple taxonomies, but they would likely be special-purpose relationships, such as equivalency mappings or translations.

Subject scope and purpose

In addition to considering the relationships between terms, another determining factor of what constitutes a single taxonomy is the subject area scope. One taxonomy is for one subject area, although that subject area could be very broad, especially if the taxonomy’s purpose is to support indexing of the topics in a daily national newspaper. More often, a taxonomy is more limited in scope, such as just technology topics or health topics.

Related to subject scope is how the taxonomy will be used in both indexing/tagging and retrieval. Generally, a single taxonomy is utilized in a single indexing/tagging method and with its own indexing policy. Policy, comprising both editorial style for terms and indexing rules, is often a defining factor for a single taxonomy. Different taxonomies will have different policies. For the end-user, a retrieval function is served by a single taxonomy, such as supporting a search function or providing a set of browse categories. If you want to enable multiple unrelated methods of retrieval (such as type-ahead for the search box, dynamic filtering facets, and a navigational browse), then you will need to create separate taxonomies for each. At a former employer I built taxonomies for SharePoint, and it turned out that I had to build three completely separate taxonomies: (1) the consistently labeled hierarchy of libraries and folders, (2) terms and their variants to support search with a third-party auto-classification tool, and (3) controlled vocabularies of terms for consistent tagging and metadata management of uploaded documents.

There is also the question of whether the content to be accessed by the taxonomy is together in one set or separated out for different purposes or different audiences. A taxonomy should be designed to suit its own content. This was the case in a current project I am working on. There are two distinct sets of content available on a web site. The content sets have many similarities, so could be browsed via the same one hierarchical taxonomy, but they are for potentially different audiences. If the content set were to remain separate, we would have created two separate taxonomies, each customized to best suit its own set of content. But the site owners decided that the two sets of content would be presented together, “blended,” to cross-sell content, in addition to standing on their own elsewhere on the site. Thus, a single taxonomy was the chosen option. The use of two content categories for terms within the taxonomy will enable the additional, separate content set option.

Conclusions

In sum, a single taxonomy:

• Has standard relationships (BT/NT, RT, USE/UF) confined within it. Cross-taxonomy links, if any, are of non-standard types.
• Has a defined, restricted subject scope.
• Has its own indexing/tagging policy.
• Could function in isolation, unlike a single facet (although may be supplemented by other controlled vocabularies/metadata).
• Has its own implementation, function, and purpose (although taxonomies can be reused and repurposed).

It’s important for a taxonomist to determine what constitutes a single taxonomy versus multiple taxonomies, not so much for communicating with stakeholders, but rather to plan the initial design of the taxonomy within a taxonomy management tool. Taxonomy/thesaurus software allows for the designation of one or more taxonomies/thesauri that may be linked to each other or not. The use of multiple so-called files, thesauri, vocabularies, objects, classes, categories, etc. are different ways that the various software tools allow the taxonomist to control the divisions between and within taxonomies.

Independent Taxonomy Work

Are you an aspiring taxonomist looking for work?  Because taxonomies tend to be project-based tasks, a lot of taxonomy work is freelance, contract, or consulting. I have written on this topic  in my book, but that was over four years ago, and I have seen or experienced many taxonomy jobs since, so it’s time for an update.

Freelance taxonomy work

The freelance taxonomist works on portions of a taxonomy project but does not do everything required of taxonomy project. I now see that the greatest opportunity for freelance taxonomy work is to freelance/subcontract to independent taxonomy consultants or small taxonomy consultancies. These consultants take on projects too big for one person and need to subcontract parts of it. Freelancing directly to an end-client, meanwhile, has become increasingly rare.

The best way, and really the only way, to find this kind of work is through serious networking with taxonomy consultants. Make sure, however, that any freelance contract does not preclude you from serving competing consultants.

The freelance taxonomist does most of the work remotely from home, but could be called on to visit a client site, depending on the nature of the project. Being open to travel and having client relationship skills thus helps, but is not always a requirement. Work could be researching and creating a new taxonomy from scratch, editing an existing taxonomy, mapping two different taxonomies, or developing auto-categorization rules for a taxonomy. In any case, the freelancer is not the sole person responsible for the taxonomy.

People suited for this kind of taxonomy work tend to be those with at least one past employment in taxonomy, metadata, or classification work and already comfortably set up as a freelancer, such as through editorial work, indexing, or consulting in the information field. Basic office software is usually all that is needed, but prior experience with a taxonomy management tool is helpful, and, if needed, remote access to the system can be arranged

Contract taxonomy work

The contract taxonomist may do the same kind of work as the freelance taxonomist or may take on more responsibility in the taxonomy design strategy. The contractual relationship may be different, though, and instead of being treated as a freelance vendor the contract taxonomist may be treated as a temporary employee on a W-2 tax status.

When a company needs a taxonomist, it is often for a temporary assignment, so instead of posting a full-time position on the careers portion of their website, they turn to a staffing/recruiting firm for help. While it could be a general staffing firm they use for other assignments, experience has shown that finding taxonomists is difficult, so companies turn to specialized staffing firms in the areas of information technology/science. Sometimes a company has a large information technology project for which taxonomy development is only a piece, and they contract the entire project out to a large IT consulting firm. The IT consulting firm then seeks to fill the taxonomist slot by turning to a third-party recruiter. Recruiters from the staffing firms then search LinkedIn or Monster.com resumes or other sites. So, if you looking for taxonomy work, make sure you have a strong LinkedIn profile and a resume on Monster.com open for all to see, with “taxonomist” prominently in the title. It’s also important to get on the list of staffing firms/recruiters specialized in library science and information technology.

The contract taxonomist is generally expected to be more on the client site than the freelance taxonomist, but with some negotiating, part of the work could probably be done from the home. If the assignment is relatively short and the location does not have any qualified taxonomists, the client will pay for travel and lodging , sometimes for several weeks or even a couple months. So, being open to short-term (1-3 month) relocation can be an advantage.

The nature of the work can be the same as for a freelance taxonomist, or it could involve more taxonomy design, planning and strategy, similar to that of a consultant. The rate is comparable to freelancing, as there is an intermediate party in both cases, and rates vary based on one’s experience and level of responsibility. A third level of intermediary could result in a lower rate. On the other hand, difficulty in finding a taxonomist for a specific project is a specific location allows the contracting taxonomist room to negotiate.

People suited for this kind of taxonomy work need to have prior taxonomy experience, but often experience with a specific software tool is also desired, whether a taxonomy management system, auto-classification system, content management system, or digital assent management system. Location in a major metropolitan area or willingness to travel is also important.

Independent consulting work

Being an independent taxonomy consultant means not only do you need to know how to conduct every step of taxonomy development yourself (research and requirements gathering, design, developing, testing, governance planning, etc.), but you also need to keep track of deadlines, deliverables, meeting schedules, and other basic project management tasks. There is no need for major project management skills, as long as you are not subcontracting to others. The client may already have a project manager on staff if taxonomy development is part of a larger project.

The other major task in consulting is creating a proposal, involving estimating the costs and time requirements, and then meeting those expectations. The proposal-writing task is often an obstacle to new aspiring consultants, and the best preparation is to either work in a consultancy or subcontract extensively to other consultants first to get exposed to the proposal requirements. Fees are typically charged per project and not per hour, so this can be tricky.

Obtaining independent consulting work involves a lot of self-marketing: a web site, a blog, LinkedIn and other social media, speaking at industry and professional association conferences, publishing articles, and general networking. Even networking with competing consultants is good, because sometimes they hear of projects they do not want and will refer the work. It’s also good for you to refer work to other consultants when it comes at the wrong time or is in the wrong location, so they might return the favor.

A Professional Association for Taxonomists

I recently attended the SLA annual conference, which this year was in Vancouver, BC, June 8 – 11. This year marked the 5^th anniversary of the professional association’s Taxonomy Division, its newest and fastest growing special interest group. The Taxonomy Division plans the programming of all taxonomy-related sessions for the conference, enough sessions so that attendees interested in only taxonomies can find a session of interest for most of the programmed time slots.

The Taxonomy Division comes closest to a professional organization for taxonomists and provides a good networking opportunity. The founding of this Taxonomy Division five years ago was the reason that I joined SLA, since I am not a librarian. (I was an accidental taxonomist after all.) SLA stands for “Special Libraries Association” but the organization now favors the acronym over the name that it once stood for, and members are increasingly referred to as “information professional” or “info-pros” instead of librarians. This label better fits taxonomists. In addition to the annual conference programs, the Taxonomy Division also has bi-monthly webinars, a mentoring program, and other resources for its members.

A selection of half-day pre-conference workshops, called “continuing education” sessions, are an important part of the SLA annual conference, and this year two of the five such workshops were on taxonomy topics (“Introduction to Taxonomies” and “Taxonomy Integration: Content Management, Navigation and Search”) and were organized by the Taxonomy Division, despite the fact that SLA has 25 Divisions. Regular session topics included taxonomies and metadata, eDiscovery, semantics, SharePoint, and from-scratch taxonomy creation (my presentation).

Not only does the Taxonomy Division organize taxonomy-related conference sessions, but it also organizes networking events at the annual conference, including an informal no-host dinner and a more formal networking event that is part of the conference program. Both division members and anyone else interested in taxonomies are welcome to attend these events. There is typically a mixture of experienced taxonomists, who likely already know each other from previous conferences, and those new to taxonomies and would like to learn more.

The SLA conference is a great place for taxonomists to network and learn from each other, but it is not necessarily the place to hear the latest trends in taxonomies. “Current Topics in Taxonomies” was the title of an informal roundtable session, but its discussions were more about sharing experiences. At the four roundtables, with on average seven people per table, some of the discussions involved experienced taxonomists giving advice to the less experienced for specific taxonomy implementation issues. The latest topics or trends are not necessarily the subject of regular sessions either, since the program is planned close to a year in advance. On the other hand, the field of taxonomies is not one that changes that much year to year. It is rather business and technology trends that change.

If you are new to taxonomies, then the SLA conference is a great place to learn a lot, through both the various sessions and pre-conference continuing education workshops. If you are an experienced taxonomist then SLA is a great way to network with other taxonomists and get inspired to speak at future conferences. I am looking forward to speaking at SLA in Boston in June 13-16, 2015. See you there, in my home city!