[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
>  
[...]
> 
> Probably what Arno really wants to characterize is not an "IA
> System" but an "IA Toolbox". It seams to me that was the original
> overall intent of the thesis of Arno Reichenauer.

According to Arno's thread-starting post, his PhD thesis was about IA
methodology.

Furthermore, the list of IA System components included in his message
was intended as a "clarification serves as a starting point for a
theoretical foundation of IA methodology".

See http://www.info-arch.org/hypermail/sigia-l/0303/0328print.html


[...]
> 
> Apart from this, some people have told us what they consider is the
> fundamental unanswered questions for IA that should be included in
> the thesis:

Not so. Here is the preamble accompanying those questions in:

http://www.info-arch.org/hypermail/sigia-l/0303/0335print.html

BL> Since your PhD thesis is about IA methodology, I suggest you ask
BL> yourself the following fundamental questions:


The fundamental questions were put forward because in:

http://www.info-arch.org/hypermail/sigia-l/0303/0328print.html

the proposed IA System components had nothing to do with Information
Architecture.


> 
> >- What is Information?
> >- What is Architecture?
> >- What is Methodology?
> >- What is Information Architecture?
> >- What is Information Architecture Methodology?
> 
> ..and ..
> 
> >Shouldn't there be a component called "architecture"?
> 
> This may show, that these people have fundamental doubts in creating
> architectures, using or defining methodologies, grasp what
> information is from the point of view of electronic systems, and
> probably amongst other things.  But this highly speculative on my
> part, so I tend to consider this kind of comments within the scope
> of communication problems. Nevertheless, in my view this is hardly
> a problem of IA, but of peoples experience in approaching problem
> analysis with a systematic mind frame.

Systematic mind frame indeed. People working on a thesis about
information architecture methodology should have answered those
questions. But it did not appear that way after reading Arno's
thread-starting message.


> 
> Apart for the last two all questions are already epistemologically
> well tackled in other fields.

And yet many people ignored the "Architecture" in "Information
Architecture".


Boniface