Talk:ISO/IEC 42010

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Per Decltype Cybercobra (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISO/IEC 42010 → ISO/IEC 42010:2007 — User:66.50.34.139 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what is your reason for such a move? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is common to refer to ISO standards in this manner. For example, the C++ standard has reference number ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E) (It was amended in 2003), and the C99 standard is ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E). The short form is probably more common, but the latter is definitely not "incorrect", for lack of a better word. decltype (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment

Wikitect (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The :nnnn does indeed reflect the year of issue. The problem, however, is that it makes no sense to have a separate wiki page for each issue - far better to have one that covers ISO 42010 and has a subsection that outlines the major changes/introductions with each release. I'm thinking that I might have an attempt at structuring this page to better 'wikify' it. This would then allow introduction of some of the features of the forthcoming 2011 release.[reply]

Wikitect (talk) 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The MEGAF link is in the wrong place - it should be in its own entry. It makes no sense to have every 42010-compliant framework on this page because the subject is the standard itself, not the things that comply with it. Propose to remove it. Similarly the TOGAF and ArchiMate references should be from their respective pages back to this one not from this to their pages.[reply]

Tschaena (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I believe the following sentence for an "Architecture Viewpoint" is wrong: 'governs exactly 1 architecture view'. Shouldn't it say something like 'governs multiple architecture views'?[reply]

RfHilliard (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Each architecture viewpoint 'governs exactly 1 architecture view' within an architecture description. This is correct, see 5.4 of ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2011 "An architecture description shall include exactly one architecture view for each architecture viewpoint used.'[reply]

Gerrygadget (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC) New to editing Wikipedia, can't find a way to rename the page. I believe it should now be titled ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010, as all references and content within the page refer to the standard with that name.[reply]

help me Mdrubelahammed (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]