Talk:Identifier

Move from Name and identifier to Identifier?

Motivation: This article really only discusses identifiers. "Name and identifier" is plain silly.

-- Eelis 02:42, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 10:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I made the following changes:

• "Language object" was awkward.
• List of example language entities was.. unusual.
• "Token" is more accurate than "lexical unit" (which didn't have an article anyway).
• Description of "label" made very little sense and was probably associated with a specific language.
• Computer languages is more accurate than programming languages (think markup languages).
• We don't need to define "keyword", there's a separate article for that.
• Made the C++ identifier example a bit simpler, we don't need full detail here.
• Opening statement should aim to define. Usage is secondary.
• Usage remark should be as broad as possible: information processing systems.
• Examples of what we can identify in general is impossible. We can identify _anything_ we can model.
• The identifiers in telecommunications and data processing section really didn't add anything to the general definition.
• I've moved the naming conventions section to a new article: naming conventions (programming).
• The "to be merged" section didn't describe identifiers.
• The reference to the federal standard didn't add anything.

-- Eelis 23:34, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

Merging Object identifier into this article

It was suggested by User:Nichtich to merge Object identifier into this article. I disagree: Even though the object identifier is indeed a type of identifier, it is by itself a key concept of ASN.1 and has well-defined syntax and meaning.

This justifies an own article, so [don't merge]. Dr. Hok 14:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. OIDs are very specific approach to distributed management of unique identifiers which deserve to be discussed in its own article. Gschadow 15:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

OID was just announced in Korea as a world standard for RFID. The reasons to not merge just keep piling up. http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200704/200704240005.html Scmdn 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge. Object identifier is a very specific kind of identifier with a well-defined community and area of use. MarkWahl 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutley do not merge. OID is specific in its nature and wildly enough used and respected to warrant its own entry.Si Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipsmi (talk • contribs) 14:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "merge" on OID since it does not make much sense to merge it and here are five cons and no pros. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpeylo (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Identifier (metadata)

The Identifier (metadata) article does not present sufficient information to stand individually. It should be merged into this article. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorse merge. However, "in metadata" is insufficient context for the definition given. Technical definitions such as this representation term are meaningless without specific reference to the particular frameworks or standards that so define them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I note that a bunch of definitions from Representation term#Sample representation terms have spawned similar separate articles with insufficient context. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Standardized virus and bacteria identifier...?

Any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.202.23 (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

and software identifier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.67.202.23 (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Info about product batch identifier.....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+product+batch+number&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+batch+code&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+%22product+number%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+%22product+number%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Further information: Talk:Food labeling regulations#How to use a date mark properly as a batch identifier.....

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Info about service batch identifier.....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+service+identifier&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+service+batch&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--124.78.228.135 (talk) 06:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

New Article Titled "Identifier (Computer Science)"

I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a new, separate article for identifiers in computer science. The way they're currently smooshed together with the generalized term is awkward and confusing. Similarly, saying that they're one and the same is like saying a variable in mathematics is the same as one in computer science. Yes, they're similar, but they're also distinct, with their own rules and nomenclature. A variable in math is an abstract concept. A variable in computer science is a location in memory. Until I can compile the "Identifiers on the back of a statue in the Louvre", the pages should be split. Opinions? Damienivan (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)