[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 Livia Labate
> 
>  
> > Boniface said:
> : Methodology robustness is about how a methodology performs in
> : various situations.
> 
> If that is not flexibility, I honestly don't see where you are
> going.

Being flexible helps being robust.

But a robust methodology is not necessary flexible.


> 
> : "Modularity" is not the opposite of "stringent, highly structured".
> : In fact, something that is "highly structured" often has high
> : "modularity".
> 
> Highly structured is indeed not contrary to modularity as a modular
> structure is very plausible. 

I am not sure what you wanted to say with the above.


> However, when you add that a robust methodology is STRINGENT while
> highly structured, that is a different thing altogether.  
> You are qualifying that structure;

A robust methodology *can be* stringent and highly structured.

But that is not the same as saying "a robust methodology *is*
STRINGENT while highly structured".


> let's make sure there are no misunderstandings - Collins Cobuild
> Dictionary tells me: "STRINGENT - Laws, rules or conditions that are
> very strictly controlled or enforced because they must be obeyed."
> 
> Where is the modularity in that?

I believe the above modularity question has been addressed by the
clarification regarding "can be" versus "is". If not, ask that
question again.


> 
> : "Stringent, highly structured" is about how tight and fine is the
> : control. "Modularity" is about how fine something is organized.
> 
> Modularity is about the flexibility of a structure. 

Modularity *affects* structural flexibility.

But modularity is about how fine grained you partition something. In
one extreme, you partition something into one unit. Thus, a monolith.
In another extreme, you partition into many units. Like smashing a
monolith into many small rocks.


> Modules allow specialized activities while still being part of a
> whole - a 'highly structured' (and relational) system if you will,
> not about how fine something is organized.

What you've said above is about "module", not "modularity".


> There are several ways to have a 'fine' organization, but if you
> expect it to be "robust" and "perform in various situations" it has
> to be flexible; 

Not true. Being flexible is the result of adapting to a situation.
But a robust methodology does not necessary adapt.


> adaptable & fit for the situation at hand (in case the term flexible
> is being a problem).
> 
> : A toolbox is just a collection of tools. There is no organization to
> : speak of. No wonder a toolbox is not "highly structured". In fact,
> : there is no structure at all.
> 
> I wish I could just go and ask someone that *really* understands
> about toolboxes: a car mechanic. Is his toolbox just a bunch of
> tools thrown inside a metal box, picked randomly from the hardware
> store or it is a collection of tools he uses to perform previously
> defined activities?

"No structure" does not mean the tools have been randomly chosen. 


> A collection of tools selected with those activities in mind?  

Are you confusing "tool box" with "tool kit"?


> Is there a structure, for example, a classification system?

A classification system is not a toolbox.


[...]
> 
> : A methodology ensures what is done is indeed the right thing.
> 
> Assuming there is one right way to do it, of course.

I said "right thing", not "right way".


Boniface