Talk:ISO/IEC 11179

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Please note that all ISO documents are copyrighted and can only be referenced according to fair use doctrine.

Note, however, that the ISO/IEC 11179 family of standards is freely available (see links in the article).
RayGates 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that an ISO/IEC 11179 registry is based on a hierarchy of concepts. Where does this idea originate? When I get time, I will try to rewrite this section based on the actual specification.
RayGates 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the examples of naming be merged into Data element name.
RayGates 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the hierarchy of concepts is not a required structure. But it seems that most large metadata registries have some hierarchy. Do you have any other suggetions on the language here? Also, I did the merge to data element name. Thanks Ray! - Feb 1 2006 Dan

Do NOT delete

This article is not compliant with wikipedia standards, since it is clearly written by the authors of the standard - or somebody close to them - and in a way that is supposed to help promote the standard. I motion that then whole article be striken, until an independent author can be found. To make this point I will insert comments in the article. [[[Special:Contributions/79.136.76.102|79.136.76.102]] (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]

I would object to the removal of this article. It seems like there are many people that have contributed to it and provides a useful function to the community. The article is written according an objective factual method according to policies. Please point out specific sections that you feel violate the Wikipedia policy and let work on those. Also, please be very clear about what Wikipedia policy is being violated. --Dan 13:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I also would object to deletion. Regardless of whether or not this article has been written by the author of the standard (highly dubious since this standard has been around since at least the early 1990s, long before Wikipedia was even a vague dream, the issue the standard attempts to address is of major importance. If you have a better standard or means of solving this problem, please bring it to the table and ISO 11179 will be quickly cast aside. FACT: in the early days of the Industrial Age, it took 75 years to agree on standards for screw threads... and there remain 5 screw thread standards in the UK to this day. I would argue that invisible data elements are far, far more complex than physical screw threads. DEddy (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we need to separate the initial dispute over content form the dispute over neutrality. I am not in any way associated with the development or promotion of this standard, yet it is as deserving of a Wikipedia reference as many other developing standards in Wikipedia. As for the content dispute, it seems pretty minor and the various authors seem cooprerative. For these reasons, please remove the neutrality dispute notice on the front of the article.--Boert (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful introduction, even if flawed. More detail would be welcome, and in areas such as information standards, those participating in creation of them are also often in the position to be best explain them to a general audience.

As an aside sex and gender are not synonyms. They have related, but not overlapping meaning. In general, their use is confused, and having a proper ontology of concepts would point this out. Gender is a social construct. Sex is a biologic determinant. Gender goes on your driver's license, and determines which public restroom you (usually) use. Sex is which parts you have, and their function. While not common, intersex conditions in humans happen. From a medical stand point it can be a tough call, and it may take multiple attributes to properly classify the individual's sex. Gender is typically a complex issue, but with different aspects. A "woman trapped in a man's body" is still biologically male, even if the gender identification (only one part of the whole psychosocialsexual concept of gender) is female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.19 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, where does a man trapped in a woman´s body pee? [[[Special:Contributions/79.136.76.102|79.136.76.102]] (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

By the way, feel free to change sex and gender for other terms in the article. [[[Special:Contributions/79.136.76.102|79.136.76.102]] (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)][reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ISO/IEC 11179. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A potentially confusing example

In the 2nd section "": [quote]For example, the high-level concept "income" is combined with the object class "person" to form the data element concept "net income of person". ...[quote] It seems: income + person = net income of person

Why not: income + person = income of person ?

More explanation would be needed here.

--Linforest (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not maintained

The page is not maintained. The links do not work properly. I agree that the page is not very useful. Mpgch (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]