Talk:Meta-modeling technique

Specificity
Meta-modeling is a fairly general field. This article seems to be describing a very specific instance of meta-modeling, rather than a general technique. Is there any way to make the article name more specific to the techniwue it is describing? Something like "Meta-modeling technique for development processes"? --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think it would be better if this article was generalized to cover more than just the single meta-modeling technique described here. There are a number of other approaches to meta-modeling that might be compared and contrasted, as evidenced by this report. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments. Metamodeling arguably originated with IRDS and CDIF, and has reached its fullest maturity in the thought leadership of the OMG. This is a particular spin on the topic and quite misleading as such. I put the following intro in the article but decided it was best left until someone could do it right:

Meta-modeling is the creation of semantics and syntax capable of describing models; i.e., the development of modeling languages. Early attempts at meta-modeling include the Information Resource Dictionary System and Case Diagram Interchange Format. Meta-modeling has arguably reached its most mature expression in the work of the Object Management Group, and its core standard the Meta-Object Facility. The MOF derived from work undertaken at the Distributed Systems Technology Centre in Australia.

Subject matter experts who could contribute to such an article would be anyone active in the OMG standards activities, which this article does not even mention.

Charles T. Betz 01:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Meta-modeling (technique)
How would an article named Meta-modeling technique differ in content from an article named Meta-modeling? —Ruud 01:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Doing more digging - I am reacting to stuff without searching far enough - the actual meta-modeling article is a good and appropriate start. The "meta-modeling technique" article probably doesn't belong. Charles T. Betz 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the best idea would be to merge the content from here into meta-modeling, and do a redirect. Note that there's also a certain amount of overlap with meta-model. --Allan McInnes (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Allan, I did some transport to Metamodel, forgetting the spelling problem :|). Now what should be the status of this current "Meta-modeling technique" ? The material seems very specific, and does not correspond to a general entry. What is the standard procedure for this? Deletion or most likely changing the article title to reflect more accurately the content? MDE 08:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. From a quick glance at the material that's left, it seems more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article. If you think it can be turned into an encyclopedia article, then I would encourage you to do so. Otherwise, you might consider either turning the article into a redirect to meta-modeling, or simple proposing it for deletion. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed
This article currently states that
 * The recommended standard orthography is metamodeling

Recommended by whom? Can anyone provide a reference? --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)