[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 Nuno Lopes
>  
> I'm really sorry to interrupt your argument, 

Not at all. This is a discussion list. Everyone is welcome to jump in.


> 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?

No, they are not.


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

No.


> 
> 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?

No. An information architecture should be created before web site
components.


> 
> 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?

Since the answer to question 3 is negative, question 4 is no longer
applicable.


> 
> 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?

A person can create many things - all of which are artifacts. But not
all of them are components of something.


> 
> 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?

I do not see anything wrong with the word "component" as long as it is
used properly.


> 
> 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".  

The word "component" indicates that something is a part of something
else.


> 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?

They are structures.


> 
> 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.

The issue was not about the need of components/artifacts. 

The issue was about mistaking web site components for information
architecture components.

Designing web site components is itself a very interesting topic.
Those components have a lot to do with information. They are in some
ways affected by information architecture, if a site has one (not
every site has an information architecture). But make no mistake about
it, those components are NOT information architecture components.

One of the consequences of mistaking site components for information
architecture components was when people looking for a taxonomist they
thought they needed an information architect. See:

http://www.info-arch.org/hypermail/sigia-l/0303/0470print.html


Boniface