[Sigia-l] More definition?? Ugh. [was 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 Coon, Sean
>  
> > If taxonomy development (or navigation to information objects from
> > either a "top down" or "bottom up" approach) isn't an artifact of
> > an information architecture process, what is it an artifact of
> > then? -SC
> 
> "An artifact of a classification process." -BL
> 
> ok. being that a majority of IA's would argue (and people, please
> correct me if you feel otherwise) that classification processes live
> within the realm of information architecture processes, are you stating
> this because I wasn't descriptive enough in my comment [IA -> taxonomy
> development] = [IA -> classification processes -> taxonomy development]
> or do you feel that this process falls outside the realm of IA or the
> work of information architects?

I see the classification process falls outside the realm of
information architecture. Of course, people working on a site's
information architecture benefit from a taxonomy perspective. But a
taxonomist is not an information architect for the site.


> 
> "To me, information architecture is the structural specification of a
> system's information space." -BL
> 
> 'structural specification' is such a vague definition. which is fine
> in and of itself. but since classification artifacts don't fit
> within [your definition], the next logical question would be what
> does?

The information architecture itself is the principal artifact. It is
after all a specification which may take on various forms, depending
on the methodology and development environment.


> can you illuminate? because I would argue that classification
> artifacts (on one level) = structural specifications of a systems
> information space.

For example, a news story site may have an information architecture
stating that every story must include the structural entity News Type.

Meanwhile, a taxonomist may create a scheme for classifying stories so
that story creators can provide consistent News Type. As the site
later expands its news coverage, the taxonomist may change the
classification scheme to reflect the expansion. But that change
doesn't alter the site's information architecture.


> 
> "May be before defining the field, people need to call what they
> produce by the right name. If we cannot do that, we have little hope
> of consistently producing the right thing, let alone defining the
> field."  -BL
> 
> brilliant smithers. now go find me a list of those infernal names!
> [evil laugh]

Talk to the people in your organization. People who are good at doing
their work know the right name of what they produce. One way of
gauging whether they really know what they are doing is asking them to
explain why they call what they produce by such name.

Asking a similar question regarding Information Architecture when
interviewing IA candidates is an interesting gauge. :-)


Boniface