[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
>  
> "Boniface Lau" wrote:
> 
> > I was not referring to any components. Different systems have
> > different components.
> 
> See, why don't you get a *little* more concrete? Examples? With
> answers like these, it seems like you just don't want to share your
> knowledge.

It is one thing to correct people's mistakes. But quite another to
connect the dots for them. I do not believe in spoon-feeding. And I am
not your tutor.


> 
> > ISTM, you were not sure of what you were talking about.
> 
> Boniface, I am slooowly getting tired of this kind of discussion. 
> Remember what this thread is called? "IA system components - ADD TO
> THE LIST!" I think I stated it four or five times now that I DON'T
> HAVE A FIXED PICTURE OF WHAT IS INSIDE AN IA SYSTEM YET.

But that is not the issue. The issue is that you changed your meaning
of "IA System" without even acknowledging the change.

Furthermore, you used your revised meaning of IA System to argue
against a response to your previous meaning. That is not an above
board way of holding a discussion. When you are the one seeking help,
it is all the more important to conduct yourself above board.


[...]
> 
> > 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"?
> 
> See, in my view, there is no one single definition of the term IA,
> because it is used to describe different, if also related
> things. For example a process or the respective outcome. Or the
> discipline. Or a skill.  Just like the term "architecture" can
> describe at least both a discipline and a system (the part of a
> building). There is no sense in searching for *the* definition of
> IA; no single defintion can cover all aspects.

How well people can define anchoring terms reflect how much they know
what they are talking about. May be you need to go back to class to
pick up a lot more on the basics before resuming work on your PhD
thesis. IMO, you are not equipped for the task. Charging ahead in
spite of the shaky foundation may mean a big mess at the end. You have
been warned.


> 
> > 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.
> 
> That's not putting words into each other's mouth but a very
> effective and efficient method when it comes to understanding
> another one's viewpoint, a technique that in psychology is called
> re-learning. 

I suggest you look up for the difference between projection and
re-learning.


[...]
> So, if you really are interested in understanding my point, it might
> be a good idea that you tell me what you have understood so far

What I have understood so far is that you repeatedly contradicted
yourself - a sign that you are confused about the basics. Thus,
earlier I suggested that you go back to class to beef up on the basics
before continuing on your PhD thesis.


[...]
> > 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.
> 
> True.
> And if you choose not to defend, 

Wasn't you who complained about criticism? ;-)


Boniface