[Sigia-l] moving beyond first principles: how?

[Listera]

"Richard_Dalton at vanguard.com" wrote:

>> Not true. There are many architects doing interior design.
> 
> But I bet they realize they're doing "interior design" and don't call it
> "architecture".

The point is they are "architects" and they are doing "interior design". And
everybody is happy for the contribution they make.
   
> But I bet the contractors don't call themselves "architects" in the pub at
> the end of the day and i'll bet they recognize that the plans they're
> working from have been "architected" at some point.

Again, the point is contractors are doing what architects are "supposed" to
do.
 
>> There are many non-MDs giving medical care.
> 
> But I bet they don't call themselves "doctors" (the legal ones anyway).

What's a "doctor"? 

A "doctor" from Peru :-) is not a "doctor" in the U.S., unless relicensed.

>> Some professions are licensed, some aren't.
> 
> I don't care about licensing,

I think you do. It all comes down to *somebody's* definition --> license -->
money.

> I care about advancing the knowledge of the field and the ability to add value
> in a business environment.

What's a "writer"? Who is a "musician" or a "designer"? Is Matt Drudge a
"journalist"? Are people trying to become the American Idol "musicians":-)

Are writers, musicians, designers, etc., lost in the business world because
there's no sanctified "definition" of their "profession"?

> Both of those, in my opinion, require more definition of the role.

I doubt it.

>> If you want to license IA, come out and say it. Short of that, we don't need
>> no stinkin' definition. From programmers to writers to designers to
>> musicians, many professions do just fine with a "definition".
> 
> I presume you mean "without" not "with" a defintion.

Yes, thank you.

> In any case, 3 of the 4 professions above (programmer, writer and musician)
> are quite well defined

I defy you to define what/who is a writer, designer, musician, programmer!

> In addition these professions are well known

Exactly. They are "well known" even without being well defined.

> There is no chance that someone could describe "Information
> Architecture" 

I bet people would have a very hard time defining what a paleontologist or a
provost is/does, even if they may be hyper-defined. Why do we have to worry
about the proverbial "someone"?

> and why its needed accurately and until at least some people can (i.e. the
> people who wear the suits and pay the money) it won't be taken seriously.

To take your argument to its logical conclusion, IAs won't be taken
seriously unless they are licensed and represented by a 3-letter acronym so
the suits can check off credentials with minimal effort?
 
> ... why don't you want a definition?

Why would I want it?

> Why do you think it will hurt rather than help?

The same reason why a "definition" of a writer, journalist, programmer,
designer or a musician (which is a code word for licensing) would
artificially limit peoples' ability to practice in those fields.

This isn't 1662 and, hopefully, we don't need the Book of Common Prayer, of
Charles II's the Act of Uniformity.

Ziya
Nullius in Verba