Talk:Data engineering

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tjs5906.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ad

This article reads too much like an advertisement.

This is fairly accurate of IE and the role that various individuals (e.g., Martin, Finklestein) played in the evolution. Having been involved in the roll-out of IE, and knowing Jim, I think its close and certainly not advertisement.

Advertisements don't usually talk about the "chequered history" of an idea or product, and don't discuss the parting of the ways between the founders. In comparison with many other articles in Wikipedia, especially technology, this article is pretty restrained in its claims on behalf of the benefits of Information Engineering. I believe it would be reasonable to remove the advertisement tag, but as I am a former employee of James Martin Associates and former technology champion for Information engineering it would probably be inappropriate for me to remove it myself. However, I agree that the article could be improved. --RichardVeryard 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear from the CACI people in London and the USA. They were onto something very close to Information Engineering. The ADAM dictionary metamodel incorporated the main concepts of IE. In fact I think they were ahead of Clive Finkelstein and his team in this regard. I suspect that they practiced IE but for commercial reasons kept it under wraps. Phil Runciman (AKA KDF9andTD1a) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdf9andtd1a (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

History unclear

"After 1980 the Finkelstein thread evolved into the DP-driven variant of IE."

Nowhere in the article does it explain what DP expands to.

192.43.65.245 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a history of IE and, knowing James Martin and others involved, is actually close to reality. It is not advertising but factual.

As of 06/14/2008 there is an explanation of what DP expands to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.163.6 (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The removal of the section is too extreme. A much briefer summary should do unless more sources are found. --Ronz (talk) 04:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Want to discuss Modeling to the Code Level

We are currently modeling information from the business into the proces and code level. Anyone else doing this? --Kyndra Morris 14:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Look at the Wikipedia articles on Computer-aided software engineering (CASE), Model-driven architecture (MDA) and Software factory. --RichardVeryard 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Real term ?

Here in Canada, I think Information Engineering is called "Information Technology Engineering" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.208.130 (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I refer to myself as an "Information Engineer" but it has nothing to do with this fairly narrow business babble definition. Rather, its engineering built around information theory. Certainly Cambridge University [1] defines it as such too. Type "Information Engineering" into Google and the top few hits (other than Wikipedia) define it in a similar way.

The reference to DP-driven is "Data Processing-driven". Today it would be called "IT-driven". This article is historically accurate and correct in terms of the evolution of Information Engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveFinkelstein (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I referred to myself as an "Information Engineer" but it had nothing to do with a fairly narrow techo babble definition. Rather, it is engineering built around the evaluation of alternative ontologies for the representation of concepts within a business domain. Type "Information Engineering Methodology" into Google and the top few hits (other than Wikipedia) define it in a similar way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.193.46 (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this page from "Information Engineering" to "Information Technology Engineering". The Information Engineering page now talks about the more common meaning for "Information Engineering". ArguMentor (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Data Engineer

I have added Data Engineer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AngusWOOF#Request_on_20:13:45,_7_January_2019_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_Dzmitry.lahoda . But person, who seems expert in anime, thinks it was wrong. Simply - previously Information Engineering was all. Now we have specializations(data science, machine learning engineer, developers operations, software engineer, support, monitoring, new kinds and new wave of toos like DSL workbenches, several enterprise architecture frameworks), so instead of old bloated all in one (with ads on wiki) term IE, we have many. Is anybody can consider why expert in anime decides about IT Engineering? Is any person with some credentials whom I can talk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzmitry.lahoda (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove Sections Without Citations

Section 4: Information technology engineering topics

Section 4 in it's basic form has been in the article for 12 years without any citations. First occurrence: by Mdd at 15:14, 25 November 2008. I believe 12 years without citations is quite long enough, thoughts?

Section 5: The synergy of tools and information engineering

Section 5 is a similar situation, but is a newer edit. First occurrence: by Tjs5906 at 15:10, 13 December 2019. Thoughts?

Requested move 4 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Information engineering → Data engineering – Currently "Data engineering" redirects to "Information engineering", but nowadays "Data engineering" has become the main term in industry and academia. The "Data engineering" page has been a redirect to "Information engineering" since 2004, except once when someone added some text but it was quickly reverted. Dataflow123 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• There is also the unrelated Information engineering (field). Dataflow123 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That article has been moved a few times before ([2]) so warrants a full RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support: thanks for adding this RM. And yes I think the page should be moved. Nowadays everyone says "data engineering", and "information engineering" isn't used much to describe this any more; note all the newer sources I've added call it "data engineering", and one (https://quanthub.com/what-is-data-engineering/) actually mentions "In the 1980s the term information engineering was coined ... Around 2011 the term Data Engineer started to crop up". Other people in Talk: Information Engineering#Data Engineer and Talk: Information Engineering#Real term ? are saying "information engineering" doesn't have this meaning and/or point to Information engineering (field) for it instead. Dataflow123 (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Very clear case of common name. Literally nobody refers to this field as “information engineering”.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.