Talk:Specification (technical standard)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Service Specifications.....???[edit]

One thing that has brought to my mind and that has been neglected for so long is the need of service specifications in all fields that are dealing with the intangible (or whatever that are not clearly visible) products. Although, the concept has already been adoped in some of the areas, such as hospitality industry, the application has not been universally approached and widened. That is why so many dissatisfactions from the customers who have encountered various kinds of difficulties have been generated.

In general, human being is capable of distinguishing good and bad things and the market can catch this opinion poll using the valid voting method which then can be statistically confirmed. However, it is very difficult for customers to compare the products that are both of the top quality and in most cases such a comparison is statistically failed. In these circumstances, the product specifications will come into play to make judgment and to distinguish the -est and -er things.

--- Plus the fee charge standard associated with the services--222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the link below http://www.nationalbank.co.nz/personal/ratesandfees/fees/default.aspx --222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the topic of service specification has not been online, I have to make more thoughts about the topic here

Donation standard or Donation specification....??? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=donation+specification&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+donation+standard&btnG=Search --222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+fee+charge+standard&btnG=Search --222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+fee+charge+specification&btnG=Search --222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Info from ISO

http://www.iso.org/iso/products/standards/catalogue_ics_browse.htm?ICS1=03&ICS2=220&ICS3=20&

http://www.iso.org/iso/products/standards/catalogue_ics_browse.htm?ICS1=35&ICS2=240&ICS3=60& --222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&newwindow=1&q=goodwill+site%3Awww.iso.org&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=40Bl2axaDeg

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&newwindow=1&q=donation+site%3Awww.iso.org&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=A3kstZqaYps --222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&newwindow=1&q=service+charge+site%3Awww.iso.org&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=A3kstZqaYps --222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, ISO may not have a power to address the above issues but United Nations does and so does International law--222.64.221.2 (talk) 01:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily ref. for logo issue....[edit]

I'm having difficulties to find any info regarding a logo requirement from prominent orgs. Therefore the reference is temporarily for the time being.--222.64.17.23 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your proposed changes. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the references and notes here and in the article ~__~ --222.67.203.96 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could wiki admin please generate the factbox about the topic....[edit]

to reduce a long list in the See also section--222.64.31.57 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I may list the spec articles in the Specification (disambiguation)--222.64.31.57 (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of ISO standards cited are lack of ....[edit]

critical reviews academically http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+12615&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.23.186 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the citing of unreviewed/informal commented ISO standards is a best way of getting things going--222.64.23.186 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+3388&btnG=Search --222.64.23.186 (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+10209&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.67.203.96 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A++ISO%2FIEC+Guide+74&btnG=Search --222.67.203.96 (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=ISO+17724&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.67.203.96 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+ISO+81714&btnG=Search --222.67.203.96 (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=IEC+81714&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.67.203.96 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the following info, whenever people can....[edit]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=allintitle:+citation+guidelines&hl=en

for some reaseon, this message can not be posted in the discussion section of

Citation --222.64.219.35 (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+citation+guides&btnG=Search --222.64.219.35 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why this should be included. Rlsheehan (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benchmark specification....[edit]

--124.78.225.90 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the biggest difference between benchmark and benchmark specification is that the later has an document identifier whereas the former does not.

The difference between Benchmark specification and this topic is that the later contains the relevant methods to reach the specs and the former does not

I could be wrong--124.78.225.90 (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any more differences....??? --124.78.225.90 (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at....trade men do not like this idea...^___^


as the listed stocks are too dynamic. Never mind...--124.78.225.90 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUT

ETFs are different--124.78.225.90 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search results for the industry guidances --- food and drug specifications[edit]

Search engine producers should also be aware of the following....

--222.67.210.82 (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.210.82 (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--222.67.210.82 (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Program Specification and Functional Specification are the same things Program_specification —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.178.53.119 (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the topic of document identifier....[edit]

Discussion at Electronic medical record talk[edit]

This may or may not be related to this subject, so my apologies in advance if it's not -- I've started a discussion at the electronic medical record page; please participate in the discussion there as the links being added here seem to be related and we can keep the discussion together. Thanks! Flowanda | Talk 20:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section of Notes & references needs to be closely examined ....[edit]

and I leave it for ISO 690 panelles to fix it up --222.67.200.69 (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info about the topic of.....[edit]

--222.67.215.44 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Specification_(technical_standard)/Archive_1&oldid=1093026499"