[Sigia-l] IA system components - add to the list!

[Arno Reichenauer]

"Listera" wrote:

> > We are expected to deliver certain things (whatsoever
> > that is in each specific case), and we know how to do it.
>
> You do? In business, as in life, things are far more complicated, I'm
afraid
> to report.

Oh come on. I guess YOU have a clue how to do *your* IA, at least it sounds
very much like it ;-) And so everybody else in the *business* I guess has
her personal view on how to achieve the things she's expected to deliver.
But thanks for the insight into real life anyway ;-)

> > some day there will be a settled understanding of IA, if only due to
> > habituation.
>
> That doesn't necessarily mean we'll all be better for it.

No, of course not. Once more: If you don't want to define IA, that's ok.
Other will do anyway (even if only the ones writing books;-), and the only
way to go that I can see is to invite everybody to contribute.

> (Then again, I
> think you already said you don't care, didn't you?)

No, I didn't.

> That wouldn't bother me, in the sense that I'd be fighting against it
then,
> as I'm doing now.
..
> I wouldn't like IA to calcify into some skinny, plumb, enormous or grossly
> obese IA demarcation, just because it's convenient for some people as they
> happen to be doing a book/thesis/lecture/course/etc at the moment.

Ziya, is this a discussion or a fight? If it's becoming a personal fight
because I happen to be doing a thesis, maybe we should stop here or at least
go off-list with that; I guess nobody's interested in that. If it's still a
discussion, great. Then cool down and let's get back to arguments again, ok?

Up to now, I can see the following arguments:

1) pro theory/definition
- allows for drawing solutions from generalized knowledge
- eases communication within the community
- eases communication & explanation of IA to clients

2) con theory/definition
- risk of exclusion

I already stated that in my view, exclusion is 1) implicitly already the
case today and 2) no problem as long as the community as a whole
sufficiently agrees on what should be included. The point is to make
explicit what already is there implicitly in EVERYBODY's mind and develop a
sufficiently agreeable consensus. And if you call that

> You are trying to divine dogma,..

well, then, - I don't know.

But anyway: Can you add any more arguments supporting your view, refute the
ones I gave or respond to my points against your "exclusion"-argument?

Arno