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

[Boniface Lau]

> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> Behalf Of Arno Reichenauer
>  
[...]
> 
> 1. there is an IA process that results in "things", which are
> basically the deliverables of Information Architects' work. 

Isn't that process your IA methodology when you wrote in:

http://www.info-arch.org/hypermail/sigia-l/0303/0351print.html

AR> IA methodology, i.e. the process you have to go through to obtain
AR> these contributions


[...]
> 
> > I was not there with your IT colleagues. You better ask them.
> ..
> > A system architecture is about the components within a system and
> > how they should be connected.
> 
> Hm, not very helpful. Sorry, I still don't know what you mean. What
> components are you referring to?

I was not referring to any components. Different systems have
different components.


> 
> > Mind you, a collection of disconnected components is NOT a
> > system. But when the web site components are connected, they form
> > what we call a web site. Are you saying that a web site is an IA
> > System?
> 
> No. Some components of a web site are delivered by IAs, some are
> delivered by other professions. The components that are delivered by
> IAs are one part of an IA system,

But that is not what you said earlier in:

http://www.info-arch.org/hypermail/sigia-l/0303/0379print.html

AR> In my terms, "IA system" describes this sum of web site components
AR> that come from IA

At that time, you said "IA system" is the _sum_ of those web site
components delivered by IAs. Now, you say what is delivered by IAs is
only a part of the "IA system". ISTM, you were not sure of what you
were talking about.


> as I explained above. Another one might be all the non-artifacts
> like maintenance process descriptions etc. And there might be even
> more. But they all somehow contribute to the development/maintenance
> of a website/intranet. Once more, I have no fixed picture about that
> yet. I'm curious to listen to your view on that.
> 
> > The definition of IA is "secondary or subordinate" to an IA
> > methodology? I found that hard to believe. Thus, I thought you
> > meant "collective".
> 
> Mind you (I like that ;-): I talked about the definitions of IA as a
> SYSTEM and as a PROCESS, not just *the* definition of IA. 

But we are talking about the meaning of a term that is key in defining
the outcome.

When people do not know the meaning of IA (Information Architecture),
how will they know they have developed an "IA system" and an "IA
process"?


[...]
> By the way, I appreciated very much Eric's trying to understand what
> I tried to explain rather than merely looking for something to
> critize. ;-)

People who know what they are talking about often found it offensive
that others project what they want to see. It is like putting words
into others' mouth. I try not to do that.

As to what you called criticism, people come from a wide variety of
backgrounds and are trying to understand each other's perspective.
Thus, they seek clarification on what seems to be ambiguous.

Some people look at those clarification requests as criticism. Others
look at the requests as ways of deepening their own understanding of
what they are talking about. It depends on whether people adopt the
perspective of defense or learning. The choice is yours.


Boniface