Is the new ACM 2012 taxonomy usable/in use? I've wasted about an hour trying to figure out how I'm supposed to categorise an ACM article using the new 2012 taxonomy here, and how I'm supposed to represent those categories in my article.

On the plus side, the 2012 taxonomy has some perfectly apt categories for my paper (unlike the previous 1998 version).

On the minus side, the instructions are abysmal with respect to how it should be used, it seems to be completely incompatible with the standard TeX macros provided with standard sig-* templates, and not only do the TeX macros provided by this interactive system not work (\begin{CCSXML} and \ccsdesc), they don't even seem to even exist (at least Google turns up little if anything).

Is anyone actually using this new 2012 taxonomy and if so, is there any good guide on how to use it with a standard LaTeX sig-* template?

(Otherwise I think I'll just go back to the 1998 version ... as weird and archaic and seemingly useless as it is, at least it's a straightforward way to fill in those pointlessly mandatory category fields. Grrr.)
If you're using sig-alternate.cls, this sample TeX file seems to have been silently updated in May 2015 to give an example of how to do this. Here's a precis:


Download sig-alternate-05-2015.cls into your local TeX tree (or temporarily into the same directory as your project) 
Edit the first line of your LaTeX source to use it:

\documentclass{sig-alternate-05-2015}

Further down your LaTeX source, within the document enviroment (usually after your abstract), paste in the code that the 2012 ACM Computing Classification System gives you once you have chosen your categories, for example:

\begin{CCSXML}
&lt;ccs2012&gt;
...
&lt;/ccs2012&gt;  
\end{CCSXML}

\ccsdesc{Computer systems organization~Robotics}
\ccsdesc[100]{Networks~Network reliability}

Follow this with the line to print out your classification section:

\printccsdesc

And finally, add your own keywords:

\keywords{ACM proceedings; \LaTeX; text tagging}



I say this was added 'silently', because internally, the sample.tex file still says it was last updated April 2013, and it says This file should be compiled with V2.5 of "sig-alternate.cls" May 2012, whereas it actually compiles with "sig-alternate-05-2015.cls", which claims internally to have last been updated in Aug 2013, despite the date in its filename! No wonder everyone is confused.

Thanks to ayman's answer above, which has become broken, but pointed me in the right direction. (Could someone edit the broken link in ayman's answer to the sig-alternative.cls file from December 2014? --- I'm a newbie caught in the reputation catch-22 where I can't comment answers).