Talk:Reference model

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Systems High‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Scientific modeling.

first write[edit]

I filled out this article from the stub that was there. I admit that it could use more references to published works than the single reference to the SOA TC that it contains, but I believe that it meets the guidelines necessary to move it to B class. --Nickmalik (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definately needs sources and more content, so I've given it a rating of Start Class. -down load | sign! 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setting the definition back[edit]

Shortly after authoring the page, one of the editors change the definition to an non-verifiable definition, and removed the only actual reference for the article. In keeping with the wikipedia pillars of WP:V and WP:NOR, I returned the definition of a reference model to a near-direct-quote from the OASIS SOA Technical Committee where the definiton of a reference model is provided. If anyone has another reliable source that you'd prefer to cite, please go ahead and add that definition as well. We could use multiple points of view as an improvement. Nickmalik (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of opening section[edit]

Editor MDD and I had a short e-mail conversation about the opening text. He expressed concern about starting the article with a long quote from an authoritative source. He explained that the opening section should start with a "less exact, more global description" of the topic, with specific citations later in the article.

MDD proceeded to move the quote to the first part of section one, instead of the introduction. I'm fine with the movement of the citation to the first paragraph. Unfortunately the "less exact, more global description" that remains in the opening section is rather vague and not terribly well described. I've certainly seen hundreds of reference models (and created some of my own), and I'm not sure I could recognize those models when presented with that description. I will make an attempt to add a little bit of understanding to that opening section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmalik (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, I agree with your assessment of the elder lead sentence, and I am fine with your attempt to rewrite the opening sentence. Now I have studies dozens of reference-models, and wrote a few Wikipedia article about them. On the other end I have been following thousands of articles on multiple Wikipedia project for year. My experience is that there is not one "more exact, global description". There are multiple. But when you write one, in time you can start thinking you did wrote the "one more exact, global description". But that I also fine with me. We can just wait and see how things evolve here. I am happy that there the OASIS is separated from the lead sentence, nicely written down with quotation marks. -- Mdd (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mdd, while I agree that the use of a long direct quote (especially without quotation marks) in the opening paragraph is at the very least "not done", I must say that your replacement of

"A reference model in systems, enterprise, and software engineering is an abstract framework for understanding significant relationships among the entities of some environment, and for the development of consistent standards or specifications supporting that environment. A reference model is based on a small number of unifying concepts and may be used as a basis for education and explaining standards to a non-specialist. A reference model is not directly tied to any standards, technologies or other concrete implementation details, but it does seek to provide a common semantics that can be used unambiguously across and between different implementations."

by

"A reference model in systems, enterprise, and software engineering is a model of something that embodies the basic goal or idea of something and can then be looked at as a reference for various purposes."

is..... very surprising, to say the least. It would have been better to leave the quote in place for now (but with quotation marks) while working on a better opening on the talk page. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 04:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is allready explained in this edit summary, were I stated: Restored initial lead sentence from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reference_model&oldid=456332900. -- Mdd (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed[edit]

Again I have removed (see here) the link to an article which seems hardly related here. See also the desciption here. -- Mdd (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract framework or diagram?[edit]

Looking at the past few versions of this page, I can see that Reference Model has been defined as a model (not very helpful), as an abstract framework (well maybe) or as a diagram (misleading and inaccurate). As I see it, a diagram may provide a schematic view of a model, but it is not the model itself. A complex reference model like RM-ODP runs to hundreds of pages, and cannot possibly be captured in a single diagram. I'm not enthusiastic about the term "abstract framework" but it is probably more accurate than anything else. RichardVeryard (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Richard. My edit was not a sufficient improvement. I'll make another attempt. Nickmalik (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle speaks[edit]

The perfect definition of this (or any other) difficult notion needs to cover Aristotle's Four Causes in one sentence. For example, how about something like this: A reference model is an abstract framework or domain-specific ontology (FORMAL CAUSE) consisting of an interlinked set of clearly defined concepts (MATERIAL CAUSE) produced by an expert or body of experts (EFFICIENT CAUSE) in order to encourage clear communication within some domain (FINAL CAUSE). (See what I did there - I'm using Aristotle's Logic as a reference model for defining reference models. I hope it goes without saying that this is for you guys only - please don't put any of this into the article itself.) RichardVeryard (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, Richard. I will see if I can improve the definition on this basis. Nickmalik (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]