[Sigia-l] [spam] Retraction re: "IA" value posting I made earlier

[karl fast]

> To use a phrase -- 'it depends' -- on what you want your
> classification scheme to do.
> 
> Do you want it to do what Karl Fast 'designed' it to do ? If yes,
> then you can hire Karl Fast to design it. I wouldn't expect
> anything less from it.

Sort of. I would design it but I wouldn't design it based on my
whims. I would, I hope, design it based on the requirements given to
me by the client and user analysis of some sort.

Is there a "right" answer? There are many ways to design something.
There is no one right way to design a web site, a classification
scheme, or a rocket ship. There are bad designs for rocket ships.
These blow up on launch pads. But there are many good designs for
rocket ships. There is no one, single, right way to design a rocket
ship. This is the nature of all design--no one right answer.


> This, of course, is the main problem with these particular IA
> solutions. They are not IA at all, but some kind-of 'design.' These
> are not solutions.


That's the best tautology I've heard all day.

I say a classification scheme must be designed,
therefore IA is design.

You agree that a classification scheme is defined,
therefore IA is *not* design.

This is flawed logic. You say IA is not design because you have
previously defined IA as not being design. Any IA activity that is
design is thus not IA and must be something else. 

  if (activity = 'design') {
      field ne 'IA';
  } else {
      field eq 'IA';
  }   

An IA designs wireframes, blueprints, classification schemes,
metadata schemes, and more. Based on your arguments none of these
things are IA.

What is left? What is IA in this view?



--karl