[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
>  
[...]
> So what does an Information Architect uses to architect information
> encompassing an information model guiding the implementation?

It depends on the methodology and development environment.


[...]
> 
> IMOH not everything that one creates are artifacts, 

See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=artifact


[...]
> 
> A component in IT is not necessarily a "thing" of something else (as
> part of),

See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=component


> but the word it self is used to enforce characteristics of
> reusability that not all subjects have. To help one visualize what
> I'm saying, take a visual diagram editor (as probably you use them),
> one drags and drops components from a stencil to the diagram as you
> draw it.  This does not mean that the components you use are part of
> the diagram, but means that its usefulness can be materialized in
> many diagrams (thus then becoming part of the diagram). If the
> diagram is the blue print of your information architecture then
> these components function as modular functional abstractions that
> one can use or not.
> 
> But all this issue is irrelevant as you considered that an
> Information Architect does not make use of classification,
> taxonomies, thesauri, labeling techniques nothing of such sort to
> describe an information architecture guiding its implementation.

Sorry, I have a hard time following your reasoning. So I am not sure
what you are trying to say.


[...]
> To the following:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> Boniface wrote:
> 
> >They are structures.
> 
> This is an interesting answer that I can't refute, neither have I
> wanted to. Why? Not because it is relevant, but because all things
> can be seen as structures.  

But information architecture is _about_ structures.


> What I'm stating is that maybe the objects in question can be seen
> as more then that, as for instance they can be seen as reusable
> structures encompassing functionality useful to describe and
> implement an information architecture, thus components (components
> have structure and functionality too). But the answer is No
> according to Boniface.
> 
> If structures is what you feel comfortable with, so be it (lets move
> on). Out of curiosity, what name (single word only) would you give
> to things that are according to you simply structures, but in this
> case structures built to be reusable (patterns of thought,
> heuristics, and of course peaces of information)?
> 
> Anyway, this leads me to the following question:
> 
> Does an information architect makes use of structures (using your
> understating of structures) to describe and implement an information
> architecture?
> 
> If so, what kind of structures an information architect uses to
> describe and create an information architecture?

Whew! Again I have a hard time following your above thoughts. I am not
sure what you are asking for.

I would appreciate succinct expressions. Please be direct and to the
point.


[...]
> The main issue as far as I understood was about stating the
> components that are used by an information architect. The all issue
> around web site development was somewhat collateral. Just became
> relevant due to the fact that some people were more interested in
> stating differentiation with dogmatic answers without further
> explanation (as all dogmas are).

I don't know which dogmatic answers you are referring to or whether
you are in fact referring to what I'd said. If you are, please be
specific and refer to me (instead of "people"). I am not a defender
for the people. But if you address your charges to me, I can reply to
them. Okay? ;-)


> 
> I understand that some or most artifacts that an Information
> Architect uses may not the same as of a Software Architect, Business
> Architect, Web Site Architect, etc etc. As I've said in a post of
> mine the all idea of an "IA System" does not make sense for me at
> the moment.
> 
> The title was and is: "IA system components". Take the word system
> out and you have:
> 
> "IA components"
> 
> Rephrase the title better and you have:
> 
> "Information Architecture - Systems & Components".
> 
> >Designing web site components is itself a very interesting topic.
> 
> Yes it is, but my comments and questions are around the development
> of an information architecture, not around web site development.
> 
> I understand your commenting strategy, but I'm afraid that by simply
> stating what it is not, you are not clarifying the issue any
> further.  Nevertheless, you thought of them as relevant, otherwise
> you would not have posted any comments. If they are relevant to you
> then they may be close in practice, if they are close in practice
> then probably it is practice. I'm kidding, hope you can appreciate
> some humor.
> 
> So by your full negation, the question is still open. In other
> words, in math if something is not it can be anything. So
> Information Architecture is nothing and anything? Ha, crazy
> mathematicians :)

Sorry. I am again lost in trying to follow your thoughts.


[...]
> Can you share with me some whitepapers about the subject that you
> have written (or your colleagues sharing your vision), references to
> some good practical books acknowledged by you, etc etc.

I have yet to come across a "good practical" book on information
architecture.


Boniface