 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional citations for verification
editThis article still needs additional citations for verification. Most of the current sources relate to official RM-ODP documents. However Wikipedia article needs to be referenced with several independent sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what counts as official here. A quick search finds a book ("Architecting with RM-ODP" by Janis R. Putman, Prentice-Hall 2000 ISBN 0130191167) and an original presentation by Andrew Herbert to the OMG [1]. Dr Herbert was one of the researchers at ANSA who contributed to the development of RM-ODP. I had contributed something on the history of RM-ODP in an earlier version of this article, but it disappeared some time ago. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Official or not isn't really the issue here. The three main section of this article "Overview", "Viewpoints modeling and the RM-ODP framework" and "RM-ODP and UML" are at the moment without references. That is why the Refimprove tag is in the reference section. We can also remove this one tag, and add three Refimprove-section tags in these three sections.
- Now I restored the history section, I believe you added. Now this is the forth section without references. So I propose we leave the Refimprove tag in for now.
- -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Terminology - Viewpoint
edit'Viewpoint' in IEE 1471 / ISO 42010 terms isn't used in the sense that it is used in this article. This article borrows the term viewpoint from the standard and then uses it differently. In ISO terms a viewpoint is a specification of a single architecture view - it isn't a grouping or collection mechanism as suggested.
It is a confusing area and MODAF also uses 'viewpoint' in a non ISO way to refer to a collection of related views. You need to separate the 2 definitions/uses - you cannot take from the ISO and use the term differently - standards are all about standardisation including terminology ;-)