Talk:IEEE 1471

"Uses of the IEEE 1471 Terms" section removed
I removed the following section.


 * Uses of the IEEE 1471 Terms
 * The key terms defined in IEEE 1471 may have conflicting definitions in other contexts:
 * System
 * Context
 * Stakeholder
 * Concern (general)
 * Concern (computer science)
 * Architecture (disambiguation)
 * View (disambiguation)
 * Viewpoint
 * Model (disambiguation)

This seems like "original research" and I this is a rather odd section. I can't remember having seen any article showing such a listing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "original research" ? I do not understand, who and why would publish such an article? A quick look at any of these links shows a definition that is not quite the same as the one adopted by IEEE. One reason is that IEEE definitions have a certain (narrow) scope. Which creates the following dilemma. There is value in preserving the IEEE set of definitions as the point of reference. However it is confusing if the IEEE definitions have links to other articles outside of this section (scope mismatch). There is also the need to have such cross links, as other articles bring value too by showing the bigger context. I added the section to avoid links inside the section with the IEEE terminology. Do you know of another place in the Wikipedia, with a similar dilemma and a different resolution?
 * -- Equilibrioception (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt you understand the meaning of original research here, read No original research. I think you will not find a single source confirming "IEEE 1471 may have conflicting definitions".


 * This is not a matter if you are right of wrong. And whatever your intention, the facts of every section of every wikipedia article should have been first published one way or an other in an reliable source. If not it is your own original though, which classifies as original research here. Sorry. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. As to your last remark/questiom. I recently wrote the ISO 128 article, and made as much links as possible. I would do the same here, regardless of that the definition isn't exactly the same. This is more often the case then you think, and links are made anyway.


 * Your phrase - "IEEE 1471 may have conflicting definitions" is not the same as the one that I used - "The key terms defined in IEEE 1471 may have conflicting definitions in other contexts". The phrase that I used could be replaced by "See also:", while yours seems like a claim related to the IEEE terminology itself. This must explain the level of your concern.
 * I looked at the article on ISO 128 however it does not deal with explicit terminology definitions. I saw your "marked up" section from IEEE 1471 in Talk:view model with explicit links in the text. My suggestion is to separate the original IEEE definitions from the list of links to related articles (especially for the terms concern, stakeholder). You are free to disagree, of course. This is not a matter of right or wrong, this is a matter of editorial decision. I respect your large Wikipedia experience.
 * -- Equilibrioception (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed in Wikipedia articles some type of editorial decision have to be made, which are probably different then when you write an article on an IEEE forum. In Wikipedia you need to simplify the introduction, and add links to corresponding articles, even if IEEE 1471 may have conflicting definitions. In scientific subjects there are often conflicting definitions. There is no need to make this explicit. The simplification and links are needed to introduce the subject to outsiders.


 * I don't understand your proposal. But in general original (IEEE or other) definitions never get separated in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia editors may try to separate text by adding quote signs. But next editors will sooner or later almost always add wikilinks in the quoted section. So text never really remains separated.


 * Now I wikified this article some more, how I think it should be. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes look good. I'll go with your suggestion regarding not having a separate list of links.
 * -- Equilibrioception (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed Enhanced Metamodel
I removed the reference to the following image from the article: While the image appears to be consistent with the UML representation of the standard, it uses a non-standard notation, and does not come from any notable source that I can find. It appears to be original. It adds nothing to the article. Nickmalik (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IEEE 1471. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090619172138/http://www.architectureandchange.com/2008/01/20/the-ieee-1471-conceptual-framework-for-architecture-description/ to http://www.architectureandchange.com/2008/01/20/the-ieee-1471-conceptual-framework-for-architecture-description/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)