Talk:Operational View

Problems with this page

There are problems with this page.

1. First it is outdated in that under DODAF 2 collections of views are now termed 'viewpoints' not views.
2. In addition other enterprise architecture frameworks may or do have operational views and therefore some form of qualification and disambiguation is needed e.g. MODAF has an Operational Viewpoint, the NATO Architecture Framework has an Operational View (collection of subviews).

In other words, 'operational view' is not unique to DODAF.

These two problems imply 1) renaming of the specific-to-DODAF page and an intermediate page to disambiguate 'Operational View'. 'View' and 'Viewpoint' as used by different frameworks do not necessarily have the same meaning and in the case of MODAF, DODAF and NAF do not have the meaning used by ISO/IEC 42010 (the international standard for architecture description) so care is needed. Wikitect (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for noticing. I guess you are quite right that this article sort of is outdated, whit the update of the DODAF 1.5 to DODAF 2. I agree some things have to be done here, but the question is what? I recently had a similar problem with the FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework article. Now as a start I added a text to the introduction, as a response to your first argument.

As to your second argument, I added a second remark to the article about the facts you are given here. I guess, as you put it, I made a form of qualification? However I don't think here in wikipedia a disambiguation page is needed if.... there isn't going to be a general article about operational view. Even if you want to create one, you can for example start calling it Operational Viewpoint...!?

I will try to explain my last remark. In Wikipedia there are several articles about outdated enterprise architectural frameworks. For example:

• The NIST Enterprise Architecture Model
• FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (I just mentioned), and
• Generalised Enterprise Reference Architecture and Methodology is also rather old

Nowthe thing is, that an encyclopedia like Wikipedia can keep those articles even if they are outdated. They can still have some educational value. Now the same thing can happen with this article. If you don't understand or don't agree please let me know? -- Mdd (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No probs. I agree it's worth keeping historical stuff, but .. A disambiguation page is needed because 'Operational View' isn't unique to DODAF. Even under the existing old name there is also an Operational View in the Canadian Defence Forces' DNDAF (a derivative of DODAF 1.5) - see DNDAF 1.7 http://www.img.forces.gc.ca/pub/af-ca/vol-02/vol-02-02-eng.asp#ov-vo and NATO's NAF also have an Operational View so someone looking for 'Operational View' needs to be presented with these 3 choices depending on which framework they're after. If you want a top level AF comparison see - http://trak-community.org/index.php/wiki/Architecture_Framework_Comparison Wikitect (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia a disambiguation page is created if there are multiple articles about a subject. At the moment there is still just this one article. So I have just one question for you: Do you want to write a general article about Operational View? Or make a start with it? If so, maybe you could start already making a draft, for example at User:Wikitect#Operational View (This is a sub userpage to create this kind of drafts here) and we can continue this discussion.

One more thing. You start saying "I agree it's worth keeping historical stuff, but ..". In a way I think there is no but here. Wikipedia is all about keeping historical stuff. Or maybe more correct: bringing the historical stuff to the public. I agree a general article about "Operational View" would be great here... And, this is one of the many thing that could need improvement here. So if you could start by creating a general article here, I will assist you anyway I can. -- Mdd (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)