Talk:ISO/IEC 15504

Update March 2008

Fellow ISO/IEC 15504 editors and users.

I have updated the page to the latest status of the ISO/IEC 15504. As a result, I have reworded several entries to better reflect their past status. The page now refers to the international standard (IS) in the main instance and the former technical report (TR) as the second instance (i.e. for comparison/historical purposes). I have also included some text on the work in progress on parts 7 and 8 to give readers information about forthcoming parts. I would appreciate the addition of some information from SC7 national reps on extended models, or post me here. I will add some notes after the Berlin plenary on updates if there are big changes. --Hanvanloon (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I started re-working this article. Anything you wanted to add here or I close this comment. It's ISO/IEC 33020:2015 by now. KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism and Blanking

• I urge Daniel Penfield to read the following Wikipedia policies before performing further acts of vandalism to this page.

• WP:VANDAL: Blanking is prohibited - you are engaging in blanking and page deletion without raising a discussion.
• WP:Edit_war: you are engaging in edits from a personal perspective regardless of the validity of content.

Ok, but calling it  Done for now. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 11:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The entire contents of this article may be true, but it is not easily verified. There are no footnotes at all. Please add footnotes for all new material and for old material, too. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several sources - the ISO standard parts themselves, proceedings of the SPICE conferences (although it would be hard for ordinary readers to get these in order to verify them as reference sources) as well as the two referenced books which were published through Springer in 2007. The major problem for general readers of this page (versus those of us who work on the standards and edit this page as subject experts) is that you have to buy the standards from ISO. I can put the ISO web site as an external reference so readers could search the ISO site to find that the parts exist, ISO does provide a short abstract. I can quote from the books as the author (and copyright owner) but Daniel Penfield deleted my previous attempts to use inline references. That is why only the general references remained. However, I will try again to put proper inline references in a few places. Any further advice from you happily received. --Hanvanloon (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Added inline references. I would ask you (Sbowers3) to review and if satisfied, please remove the footnote tag.--Hanvanloon (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The ISO/IEC 15504 standard

In this section is the following statement:

Nationality of editors of ISO/IEC 15504 5 parts are below. Part 1, Japan, South Africa. Part 2, Japan, U.K. Part 3, U.S.A, Italy. Part 4, U.K., Israel. Part 5, France, Finland.

Comment: Could the current editors of all parts review and update this section. As a minimum we are missing the editors for parts 6, 7 and 8.--Hanvanloon (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, can you reiterate on your point or create new comment or insert the update directly? Main article needs updating. It's ISO/IEC 33020:2015 by now.  Done KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup

Hi all, This article is a collection of very interesting pieces, but I am missing a good summary or common thread that holds everything together...

If you speak German, I suggest you visit the German wikipedia article for ISO 15504; it is shorter, but has a better structure.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrMoehle (talk • contribs) 09:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct, article needs major update and I started some work adding new references etc. The "Acceptance" part is completely missing citation etc. inacceptable.  Done KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Automotive SPICE" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Automotive SPICE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 7#Automotive SPICE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Wolfch (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Wolfch - what has happened here? Yes, Automotive SPICE is different from the ISO norm. This is very normal in fact for many norms and standards that tailoring is used for a specific application (industry, need etc.) so ideally, there should be separated articles for ISO and ASPICE, or, the main article is re-worked. Often, differences are in the very fine details. Automotive SPICE Annex A Conformity of the process assessment and reference model has some more details. I suggest ASPICE is added to the page as separate chapter and also some details. I might do it, but I will have to plan some capacity for it as I started re-working a number of other similar pages like this and have the background knowledge. To conclude, I would leave the re-direction and article needs major update with referencing/citation. The CMMx comparison is also needed to be clarified. Only very few people discuss CMMx in context of SPICE, because one standard is 'big enough' first of all, etc. I close this section, we should start something new I think.  Done KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)