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

[Nuno Lopes]

I'm really sorry to interrupt your argument, but I long lost track what
is actually the divergence. As a newbie with my eyes open, that tries
hard to keep the fog out of my mind I have a couple of questions:

1) I would like to know if navigation systems, labeling systems,
searching methods (etc) are or are not artifacts with witch one builds
an Information Architecture?

2) If they are not, then I ask the question to the experts, are these
"things" artifacts to build information?

3) If they are not (as I suspect within the scope of the argument), are
these "things" artifacts that an Information Architect uses to build an
architecture concerning information?

4) If they are, why a positive answer to the first question is being
disputed and so vehemently as if Architecture part of Information
Architecture is being neglected when the issue is precisely the contrary
as far as I see it?

5) Instead of calling "components" to these "things" why not call them
"artifacts" if for some people the word used does not make any sense?

I understand that the word "component" in IT is somewhat reminiscent
from the *old* ;) discipline of software development and architecture,
but is it so bad to use it in Information Architecture as it deals with
IT too? If it is, what is the disadvantage?

As far as I see it on earth, the creation of architectures make use of
"things" encompassing artifacts in order to work with materials
(Information?).

In software industry the word component is used as a superset of these
"things". Also in Software Architecture, a system's architecture is not
defined by its parts (components) but by the sum of its parts
(components) plus the semantics behind the sum (the glue).

As far as I've read the posts, no one argued that Information
Architecture is defined by its parts rather then the sum of its parts.
The question was:

What are those components/artifacts/parts?

At the moment my perception is that arguing against the need of
components/artifacts (and the correct perception of their benefits) is
arguing against the ability to create an architecture concerning
whatever, including information.

But probably I'm missing something, so I humbly ask that someone can
help me clear the fog in my mind in order see the "things" sustaining
the creation of an architecture according to IA.

Best regards,

Nuno Lopes