Although many definitions of KM emphasise formal organisations, businesses and profits, they do not exclude the management of other forms of knowledge, including IK, within fluid and open (traditional) communities within which IK is often applied. Merali (1999: 80–81) uses a metaphor of an ecological community to define a KM community: “In KM, a community of practice is defined as an interdependent group of people inhabiting the same information space, interacting with each other through resources and other relationships.” He identifies three elements that are necessary to develop such communities. These are a clear identity of the community and what it stands for; a sense of belonging and reciprocal attachment among members of the community; and the concept of self and non-self, that is a shared sense of who and what the parts of the community lie within it and what lies outside. This definition of the KM community of practice and the elements seems to cover the ethos and philosophies of traditional societies or communities and the IK within these communities. However, it is necessary to examine the extent to which the principles of KM, as advanced by Davenport and other scholars, are applicable to IK.