Talk:Extended Enterprise Modeling Language
Appearance
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The EEML Subarticles merged here
Hi I just merged the following three subarticles here, and redirected each to their own chapter here:
I think it is better now having all this information in one place, instead of scattered over these four articles. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Marcel, I think events have overtaken you. GRL is now part of an international standard, based on i*, which makes it considerably more notable than EEML. See Professor Eric Yu's homepage. So I think GRL really needs its own article now. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Commonly used?
EEML is certainly widely discussed. from a reasonably diverse community, so I think this is easily sufficient for establishing the notability of the language. But all the sources appear to be academic papers. Is there any evidence of its actual use? --RichardVeryard (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I added two source who actually describe a use of EEML, see John Krogstie (2006) and Paul Johannesson (2008). From what I read this seems like a rather academic use, but this is one way modeling languages developed in the academic world develope.
- I do think I would be nice if this article would express some more of these EEML practices and also it's origins.
- -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although I certainly don't want to encourage tool vendors to promote their wares, I would say that a modelling language without a decent modelling tool has little credibility for non-academic use. The fact that no tool vendors have tried to spam this article makes me suspect that there isn't a tool. --RichardVeryard (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are rules about notability in Wikipedia, and I don't thing "The presents of vendors spamming the article" is one of them. Let's just try to stick to the facts here. Is there a tool or isn't there. Maybe the "Extended Enterprise Modeling Language" hasn't yet developed into any vendor's tool. Who knows? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly don't claim the presence of a tool as a necessary criterion of notability. But it is an indicator. If you are going to devote effort to Wikipedia articles on modelling languages, I'd reckon it's worth spending more time on the ones that do have tools. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Categories:
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- Start-Class software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Start-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
- All Software articles
- All Computing articles
- B-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- Start-Class Systems articles
- Mid-importance Systems articles
- Systems articles in software engineering
- WikiProject Systems articles