User talk:Prof 7
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Informational Management relationship to Data Architecture and Application Architecture
To: Prof7 -- I have a question. You have added a reference to the Informational Management page to the TOGAF page asserting that: "Additional clarity can be added between steps B. and C. by the application of the Informational Management philosophy in order to provide a complete Information Architecture." -- this may be accurate however within TOGAF, the Information Architecture encompasses Data Architecture and Application Architecture. I don't see any references to the application of Informational Management to Data Architecture or Application Architecture in the Informational Management page. Could you please respond to my talk page, or simply add some specific information to your Informational Management topic that could illustrate the connection? Thank you. SunSw0rd 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Answer: This is my first response to a request, so forgive me if it is not what you expected. My knowledge of TOGAF is from the 8.0 documents and other users. As I understand it, Data Architecture is part of the D.Technology architecture and Application architecture is part of C.Information System architecture. Neither C. nor D. constitutes the information architecture (or informational architecture) that encompasses the definitive users requirements or organsiational needs analysis. In fact, 8.0 make no specific reference that I have seen to the information architecture, it appears to assume that you have this before you apply TOGAF.
The confusion comes because many regard 'data architecture' or even 'information architecture' as being the flow analysis and something that can be represented using a flow based tool such as Visio or Aris or UML/RUP or Flowcharter. As expressed in the article, information has two components, a 'flow' component and a 'know' component. The map of the flow is often seen as the data or information architecture but that is wrong, it is really just the communication architecture (just like Information Theory should really be called Communication theory - know doesn't flow, only communication flows). Hence, the real informationa(al) architecture would be a map of the informational 'know' components that are required to drive the organisation to success. This does not exist in TOGAF (or X.25). IaM philosophies and approaches can fill in the gap. In a sense they are the reverse of JAD. Instead of asking the user what information they want, you tell him you know his role and his strategy and that, using these techniques you will tell him precisely what information he really needs. It is a much more successful, and considerably time-saving, approach. Prof 7 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
See the reference link TOGAF 8.1.1 Online and dig into section C: Information Architecture (see navigation in left hand frame on their page.) You will find that it contains two subcomponents, Data Architecture and Application Architecture (and there are two separate navigational links for them.) Now perhaps TOGAF is not defining Information Architecture the way you define it -- but the article is on TOGAF, therefore the article follows their viewpoint. SunSw0rd 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
