Without wanting to shift the discussion on taxonomies aways from the practical
examples Grant is encouraging, I’d like to go back to what someone (Vuk Cosic?)
earlier brought up on standards.  

A lot of the discussion has been based on competitions’ categories. I think
they're relevant but they can also be misleading... by being too culturally
based (or not enough, for that matter)... by self-serving particular
institutional directions, etc. etc. 

Standards, and metadata are (another) important direction in this discussion.
I'd really like if we could spend some time on that topic that was brought up

My thoughts after talking about metadata with other folks is that there are 2
main positions: some think that by discussing metadata for digital art you’re
condemning it to be “frozen” in time and that that is contradictory to its
nature - net/ digital art should be an exception to this effort of
standardization…  Others (me included) believe that archiving and preservation
are vital. I quote Richard Rinehart "With digital art, … if you don't do
something to preserve it within a span of five years, it's not going to
survive.[…]"Some works of digital art are already gone. Our time frame is not
decades, it's years, at most."

BAck to the insight that metadat can bring to taxonomies: specifically in what
concerns digital art, how does the Dublin Core, the CDWA and the MARC map to
one another? What are the essentials of the standards the Getty team is coming
up with? Last but not least, how do these reflect (and may have an impact in)
the taxonomies of digital art? What metadata schemas are out there that, while
categorizing digital artworks, may equally accommodate legacy systems of
analogue works?

Best to all,
Ana Boa-Ventura