Talk:TRAK

Notability

I seriously question the notability of this EAF when "the development started in 2009" as the article states. Wikipedia is not a forum where every new development in the field can be introduced. -- Mdd (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is just about to have a public launch event by the UK Department for Transport. Whilst it is only recently available to the public is has been in use on major projects both within London Underground Limited and also by others such as Birmingham University. It has taken many months to get into the public arena partly because it is open source and partly because of due diligence wrt IPR with the MODAF and DODAF originators. The only likely secondary source will be something about the launch event as unlike MODAF and DODAF the definition and use of TRAK, as open source, will be held on Sourceforge rather than the DfT itself which cannot hold or manage open source content.

Wikitect (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference to external site - Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) which describes an ongoing research stream to describe the UK Railway Functional Architecture using TRAK. Commissioned by the Technical Strategy Advisory Group (TSAG) and managed by the RSSB on behalf of the UK Department for Transport.

Wikitect (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikitect, you must have noticed I have rearranged some of the article and now I have restored the primary sources-tag. Almost all of the sources still seem to be primary sources. If this would be a Wikibooks article, this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but Wikipedia articles do need independent sources confirming it's notability. -- Mdd (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I did thanks. Added an INCOSE references to TRAK from their Architecture Working Group. Wikitect (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Please take an other look at WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCES. In Wikipedia the term "reliable sources" doesn't mean a source from a reliable institution like INCOSE or a government agency. Here it generally means from some kind of scientific source. Links to companies that use the method are definitely not appreciated here, because these are considered promotion. -- Mdd (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

On this basis the MODAF entry has no reliable sources identified - as these cannot be MoD's own sources. Wikitect (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually confused about sources now. Most of the content wrt TRAK, its structure, the viewpoints, metamodel etc is defined by the documents already referenced. The only other content relates to it's existence and some history - at best the sources e.g. DfT might mention TRAK but it's not likely to be a paper. Which bits of the article require reliable sources? Wikitect (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am also under the impression that you are confused about sources. Or more actually: what we mean by sources in Wikipedia. This is what those links can tell you. In short: In Wikipedia we want not just reliable sources, but realiable sources from (what we call) third parties.

I will give to examples. We normally look for those sources, starting with Googlebooks, for example:

• A search for MODAF shows in Holland 1060 results. Now this is a very popular subject
• A more simar subject is the Business Model Canvas. A search shows just 8 results. Two of them are directly from Alexander Osterwalder, which remains 6 independent third party reliable sources.

Now in Wikipedia at least two of those sources are requested to establish notability. Does this make any sense to you? -- Mdd (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I think you've missed my point. I understand what a reliable third party source is but I don't see what part(s) of the TRAK article require such sources. You don't need another source to establish either that TRAK exists or that it is structured in the way described. The only statement(s) which seem to require support are those wrt being developed within London Underground and sponsored by the Department for Transport. It would help if you could identify the particular parts that need sources. Wikitect (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This subject, and the whole article needs at least a few reliable sources... to prove that the subject is of any significance. I guess world wide thousands of EA frameworks are under development. But if you start developing one, you cannot start writing a Wikipedia article about it and expect everybody here to accept that. WE don't offer free internet space to all developers.

At the moment you haven't offered one single third party reliable source to establish the notability. At the moment every user can propose this article to be deleted and it will be gone in a week. -- Mdd (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you don't seem willing to respond to my concerns here about the new links you made to commercial parties and incose activity. As a start I have removed these new links you made by undoing your last 10 edits here + I added a notability-tag. -- Mdd (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you answer my question? Which part has a problem with reliable source? As I've tried to explain it's impossible for a 3rd party reference to substantiate any facts about how TRAK is formed / made up. If you're not going to accept references to professional institutes it's going to be difficult - in fact removing links to reliable bodies (even if you don't consider them reliable sources) makes it more likely that it's regarded as either less notable or less supported. The fact that TRAK is regarded by both the IET and INCOSE as a useful step forwards is going to be impossible to substantiate if you keep removing any such links. It's also unfair treatment as the MODAF article has no 3rd party reliable references that aren't part of the sponsoring organisation and therefore it's difficult to understand the logic being applied. If you don't explain the logic wrt the individual parts it's hard to identify what might or might not be a source. Is it the existence of TRAK? Is it that it's a framework? Is it that it's sponsored by the DfT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitect (talk • contribs) 15:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to answer your question. I have tried tot explain with links to the rules here. I think now you should ask somebody else first, because this is not bringing us anywhere. -- Mdd (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In support of the Wikitect here, the following is a summary of a comment from a recent INCOSE UK Architecture Working Group Meeting (AWG): "From the outset TRAK has been designed to be compliant with ISO / IET 42010 Standard and has provided an invaluable and yet fortuate testbed on which to iron out problems with the Standard as it approaches its formal release post FCD" As such - in addition to TRAK being used on a major London Underground Project it is helping in debugging a major international standard on Systems / Software Architecture Description. The INCOSE UK AWG has taken an action to provide a reference to this effect on its website - but this may take a few weeks to sort out. (Brian H - INCOSE UK AWG Secretary)

External Links

The logic of this separate set of links isn't clear. External to what - what is the point of reference? Since the formal definition of TRAK is held by 3 separate SourceForge project sites (Overall = trak, Viewpoints = trakviewpoints, Metamodel = trakmetamodel) there is no one singluar 'TRAK site' which which everything else may be considered to be external. It is also inconsistent with the way in which links for other architecture frameworks are treated.

Wikitect (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)