Talk:XML for Analysis

Good work

That's a great writeup for XMLA. Arcann 01:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing list of XMLA Consumers

Here is my reply to User talk:Igorkrupitsky why XMLA Consumers section should be removed:

Few reasons:

There are hundreds of XMLA consumers now. It's like having list of ODBC consumers.
Wikipedia:NOTLINK#LINK policy - There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia
WP:EL policy - which have the following categories to be avoided:

- Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services
- Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers

Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY#DIRECTORY policy
and lastly Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest - you are the person behind ReportPortal, so promoting link to it on Wikipedia is conflict of interest.

Wikiolap (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my reply to User talk:Wikiolap why XMLA Consumers section should be retained:

I agree that the list is not complete but I doubt that there a hundred of XMLA consumers. What are you sources?

Most technical products on Wikipedia provide links to commercial product. This is what makes these article valuable. Without the link to sites that provide the technology the articles would be very dry.

Yes, I am associated with ReportPortal but link it to its non commercial open source product.

--71.180.62.2 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> but I doubt that there a hundred of XMLA consumers. What are you sources?

http://www.ssas-info.com/analysis-services-client-tools-frontend and http://www.mosha.com/msolap/util.htm.

Most of the products on this list are just SSAS clients and not XMLA consumers..

All SSAS clients are XMLA consumers, please read Analysis Services for more details. Wikiolap (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> Most technical products on Wikipedia provide links to commercial product. This is what makes these article valuable.

If there are other non-perfect articles, it doesn't mean this one should follow. The better example is Business Intelligence article which used to have a list of products, and it was removed too. List of products does not make article valuable. This is encyclopedia, not directory. Please reread the policies I cited.

I am not just talking about few articles... Majority of technical articles are written this way.

I really don't want to get into argument about what majority of articles represent. I cited Wikipedia policies and provided sources for my claims. Please keep the discussion about this article. Wikiolap (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

> Yes, I am associated with ReportPortal but link it to its non commercial open source product.

It doesn't matter whether you promote commercial or free product. The conflict of interests is there. (interest doesn't have to be money directly extracted from users).

In this case, who are you? How do I know that you don't represent a conflict of interest by removing this list?

--71.180.62.2 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tactic of changing subject won't work.

I showed how your edit is in conflict with several WP policies and provided sources for all claims. I am removing the list of XMLA consumers. Should you find new arguments - please discuss them here on this talk page before reverting my edits. Thanks, Wikiolap (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we can both agree that the key point in WP policies that you referenced is that “excessive lists can dwarf articles”. On thing I would agree with you is that listing of ODBC consumers in ODBC article would be ridicules because there are so many of them.

This is one of four policies, they are all important.

My point is that there only few (10 - 15) XMLA Consumers. Can you present any evidence to falsify my claim? I am familiar with the lists that you have included but could do not identify any additional of the products to be XMLA Consumers.

--Igor K (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every SSAS client tool is automatically XMLA Consumer, because both OLEDB for OLAP and ADOMD.NET have full support of XMLA. Every XMLA Consumer is automatically SSAS client, because SSAS fully support XMLA. Therefore SSAS clients and XMLA consumers are the same.

Here is one suggestion which can settle this argument: Suppose someone creates List of XMLA Consumers article - we then can link to it. But even in this article, the links to XMLA Consumers will have to be wikilinks, otherwise it will get (rightfully) speedydeleted. And many of applications on the list aren't going to be notable enough to warrant their own article. But others will do - for example Excel, SQL Server Reporting Services, LogiXML, Crystal Analysis, Panorama Software, BusinessObjects OLAP Intelligence to name a few already have their own articles.

Wikiolap (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By XMLA Consumer I mean applications that consume XMLA directly without being dependent on OLEDB for OLAP or ADOMD.NET.

I think this is weak and artificial distinction - the article is about XMLA, what does it matter whether application uses one library or another. Is it important whether application used XML DOM or XML SAX to implement XMLA ? Or Java AXIS toolkit ? etc.Wikiolap (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this compromise: I have created a Google Knol Artcle with the xmla-consumers. Please take a look http://knol.google.com/k/igor-krupitsky/xmla-consumers. I will add to the external links section. --Igor K (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fine. Thanks for resolving this issue ! Wikiolap (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvarezdebrot pushing for a single XMLA library... most uncool

Near-spam by Alvarezdebrot...

Mister Alvarezdebrot. My name is Luc Boudreau. I'm co-lead on the olap4j project. Our XML/A library is used worldwide, on multi million dollars projects. We actively support Microsoft Analysis services, Palo, SAP, and of course our reference implementation Mondrian. Now, if our website says that it is under development, it's because we are an open and community effort to establish a standard library. We picked up where JSR-069 failed and so far have been extremely successful. Olap4j deserves to be on the library section. The official API is not 1.0 yet. It must thus be stated very clearly to our community that some APIs might change. We are professionals and are putting a lot of effort in maintaining an open and healthy development process.

Now, what troubles me is your behavior. You removed olap4j, yet added your links to icCube (or whatever it's called) on the base that olap4j says it's under development. Question. Is icCube a stagnant project that is not under development? Should a stagnant project then be removed, since it would represent a risk in terms of evolution for it's user base??

You cannot remove our links on those bases and put forward your claims. Worse, put your own company product links and be obstinate in maintaining them. I will put the link back, and should you remove it again, I will have no choice but to put a complaint against your behavior. This is how Wikipedia works, this is what open and communal projects do, this is what we at olap4j do. If you don't grasp the philosophy behind it, I suggest you stop editing Wikipedia pages. You just don't get the point.

And for the record, your company's website also has a section about unimplemented things: "Note that the current implementation of DISCOVER for members is not supported"

Lucboudreau (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]