Okay… it doesn’t go deeper.
So, yes, that is a good start. Great, even.
I was thinking hierarchical taxonomic categorization where topics contain terms that can be related and linked… content organization and categorization as models for the language, and group dynamics and experience as context for the need.
Expanding on “group dynamics” to start, the language we use in Scouting can create a barrier. I think this can be more significant in online communities where participation is measured in a sentence or two, or less… a click of a “like” button.
Expanding on “content organization” it could be easily misunderstood based on users of the platform we have here (Discourse.org) that “taxonomy” is just a list of terms like the example. It is deeper, and multi-layered. Contextual. And not always “official” like that reference. A reference that was inclusive of these things would be useful in my humble opinion.
Does that make sense?
