renaming vocabularies, removing duplicate terms, and doing our best to keep the vocabularies shallow and simple.
Renamed Vocabularies in an attempt to give them more meaning to the terms under them
Business Community and Academic Community have been combined and changed to Audience.
Academic Departments is now Disciplines.
Administrative Departments is now Resources
A vocabulary for Position has been added. In the past we used User assigned roles. The new vocab and terms will provide us with more power and flexibility.
I don’t think anyone really liked the Pedagogy vocabulary. which contain the terms Research. Teaching, and Experiential Learning. The Vocab is removed but these idea might have a future in an as yet to be created vocabulary or as free tags.
Removed redundant terms form the Vocabularies we are using . These terms are now in a list called Doubles.
Shallow and Simple But able to be combined to make powerful contexts. Long lists grow to be unmanageable. I Feel we could still go further and flatten the student hierarchy in the Audience Vocabulary
Taxonomies can help designers organize content. Well organized content helps users find content. Ours was good when we started, but we’ve grown and learn a lot since our launch. These vocabularies and definitions will help improve content findability.
are predetermined structured tags. When the Vocabulary is closed, meaning the “non-admins” cannot add anything to the taxonomy, it is much easier to control the quality of the information. But on the down side, closed systems are more like “forms”. We lose information richness because information needs to be packed into some predefined form.
By using multiple vocabularies it is possible to classify an individual node in many ways.
For example, a node representing a musical work might have a genre vocabulary and a time-period vocabulary (including terms such as: seventeenth century, eighteenth century). The node might also be identified using a vocabulary term, such as “sonata”. Adding a vocabulary for “composers”, might lead to the following combination of terms: as an “early-eighteenth-century” “sonata” by “Bach”, and it could be located by any of these three terms.
Content related to prospective undergraduate students should be tagged with:
Audience: Prospective Students
Program: Undergraduate Programs
Webinars for Full-Time MBA Students
Audience: Prospective Students, Full-Time Students
Program: Graduate -> Drexel LeBow MBA
The creator of information can change the taxonomy. For example, Editors can add free tags to news stories. Achieving meaningful information exchange is significantly harder using an open taxonomy than a Closed Taxonomy. Basically, because additional information can be added to the system, the creator of that additional information and the consumer of that information need to make sure they are on the same page. We should try not to depend on terms from Open Vocabularies. We should use these terms to learn more about our content creators and let users learn more about our content
While this article does mention Bill Cosby, it’s not about Bill Cosby (or Tommy Hilfingner). A story like this is never going to “win” on a a search for “Bill Cosby” (nor would we want it to).
Also the image of the book cover still has Amazon’s “Look Inside” overlay. Which clearly means this image was grabbed from Amazon which I believe is a copyright violation. I tried to confirm this on Amazon’s site but this article is best I found about it. Drexel Legal could confirm. But at the very least let’s use images that don’t have this overlay.
Choose a title that better represents the essence of this story: i.e. “New Book examines traits of successful leaders”
The short description could be used to tie in it’s comparison of Giraffe’s to leaders and perhaps Bill Cosby
Tags: Philadelphia, Bill Cosby and Tommy Hilfiger aren’t really relevant here. Tags I’d recommend:
Leadership (Already There)
Organizational Structure ???
Flat Hierarchies ??? (gotten from amazon’s review)
Giraffe’s of Technology