Hi,
A couple months ago I sent an inquiry to receive some feedback about the
issue of classification of architectural information. I must thank to those
who provided me their valuable ideas. I developed a very generic classification
for architectural information by reviewing and evaluating the existing
literature in the area. I came up with three types of classification:
1-Classification according to presentation of information
2-Classification according to source of information
3-Classification according to content of information
In the first category, I included the form of information architects use
(visual, textual, etc.) in order to externalize their ideas. In the second
category I examined the sources of architectural information (books,
periodicals, etc.), and for the final and the most difficult one I
classified information according to its content. The proposed classification
for the content of architectural information is:
1-Function related information (people, activities, their relationship)
2-Form related information (aesthetics)
3-Behavior related information (psychological considerations regarding the
users and other people)
4-Environment related information (site, topography, adjacencies)
5-Structure related information (engineering concerns)
6-Information related to the members of the design team (engineers,
designers, clients, owners, etc.)
7-Management related information (information about methods, procedures,
etc.)
8-Finance related information (operating cost, life cycle costs, etc.)
9-Advisory oriented (or external) information (codes, standards, etc.)
Each item in the classification is so integrated into each other that
it is very difficult to decide what information belongs to what category.
I belive it is not an easy task to make a perfect classification for
architectural
information because of its subjectivity and wide information diversity from art,
to science, to craft.
The classifications need some extra works and insights from different points
of views. I would be very happy to receive your comments and feedback about the
proposed classifications.
Thanks,
SALIH
A couple months ago I sent an inquiry to receive some feedback about the
issue of classification of architectural information. I must thank to those
who provided me their valuable ideas. I developed a very generic classification
for architectural information by reviewing and evaluating the existing
literature in the area. I came up with three types of classification:
1-Classification according to presentation of information
2-Classification according to source of information
3-Classification according to content of information
In the first category, I included the form of information architects use
(visual, textual, etc.) in order to externalize their ideas. In the second
category I examined the sources of architectural information (books,
periodicals, etc.), and for the final and the most difficult one I
classified information according to its content. The proposed classification
for the content of architectural information is:
1-Function related information (people, activities, their relationship)
2-Form related information (aesthetics)
3-Behavior related information (psychological considerations regarding the
users and other people)
4-Environment related information (site, topography, adjacencies)
5-Structure related information (engineering concerns)
6-Information related to the members of the design team (engineers,
designers, clients, owners, etc.)
7-Management related information (information about methods, procedures,
etc.)
8-Finance related information (operating cost, life cycle costs, etc.)
9-Advisory oriented (or external) information (codes, standards, etc.)
Each item in the classification is so integrated into each other that
it is very difficult to decide what information belongs to what category.
I belive it is not an easy task to make a perfect classification for
architectural
information because of its subjectivity and wide information diversity from art,
to science, to craft.
The classifications need some extra works and insights from different points
of views. I would be very happy to receive your comments and feedback about the
proposed classifications.
Thanks,
SALIH