Talk:Operational historian: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:25, 30 July 2014

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Software Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Name of the article

Hello. I would propose that "Data Historian" be the main page containing this content, which is a more general term than either Enterprise Historian (which redirects to this page but is referenced by it!!) or Operational Historian. Those two entries would then redirect to the Data Historian page. Any views? IanB (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(humourously) It does not seem that anybody is paying particular attention to this talk page, so maybe the notability of this subject should be in question.
(seriously) I agree with your proposal to rename the article to use a more general term, but I believe that "Data Historian" is too broad. How about "Process Data Historian". I find the distinction between the two types of historians in the article is somewhat artificial, so I don't see why one would even retain the two terms. Also, I have not seen any significant publications that demonstrate that they are broadly accepted. I would speculate that they arose because vendors of historians are trying to differentiate their products from others. If the intention is to describe the higher level functionality that is layered on top of a basic Historian, it could be described in a separate article called "Process Information Management Systems". If a few editors consider this to be good consensus, we would have to dig up some references that we can cite to support it and then go ahead with the modifications. Who's game? My Gussie (talk)

Implementations where another company's historian is used

There are some implementations in the article where an information system solution uses another company's historian technology. One specific example is m:pro IT Consult, who build their systems using other companies' historians. It is confusing to list these implementations in the same list as the historians themselves. To make things clearer, the section called Implementations should be renamed to something like Historian Technologies.

One proposal is to add a separate section for applications built on the historian technologies. This requires that we find clear descriptions of the implementations to determine the historian technology that is being used. This is relatively simple in the case of m:pro IT Consult (which is why I removed them), but in the case of GP Strategies EtaPRO it is not clear from their web site or the EtaPRO Brochure if it has its own internal historian or if it relies on the supported external historians shown on page 2.

Another proposal is to simplify the article by restricting it only to the historian technologies themselves and to describe the systems built on the historians in separate articles such as Production Information Management Systems. I favour this option as it will be simpler, clearer and less contentious. Any software product that is used as a pure historian and has additional functionality to use it as an information system could appear in both articles.

Any comments?My Gussie (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 There are some implementations in the article where an information system solution uses another company's historian technology.  One specific example is [http://www.mproportal.com/ '''m:pro IT Consult'''], who build their systems using other companies' historians.  It is confusing to list these implementations in the same list as the historians themselves. To make things clearer, the section called '''Implementations''' should be renamed to something like '''Historian Technologies'''.
-One proposal is to add a separate section for applications built on the historian technologies.  This requires that we find clear descriptions of the implementations to determine the historian technology that is being used.  This is relatively simple in the case of '''m:pro IT Consult''' (which is why I removed them), but in the case of [http://www.etapro.com '''GP Strategies EtaPRO'''] it is not clear from their web site or the [http://www.etapro.com/common/pdf/EtaPROperfMon.pdf EtaPRO Brochure] if it has its own internal historian or if it relies on the the supported external historians shown on page 2.
+One proposal is to add a separate section for applications built on the historian technologies.  This requires that we find clear descriptions of the implementations to determine the historian technology that is being used.  This is relatively simple in the case of '''m:pro IT Consult''' (which is why I removed them), but in the case of [http://www.etapro.com '''GP Strategies EtaPRO'''] it is not clear from their web site or the [http://www.etapro.com/common/pdf/EtaPROperfMon.pdf EtaPRO Brochure] if it has its own internal historian or if it relies on the supported external historians shown on page 2.
 Another proposal is to simplify the article by restricting it only to the historian technologies themselves and to describe the systems built on the historians in separate articles such as '''Production Information Management Systems'''.  I favour this option as it will be simpler, clearer and less contentious.  Any software product that is used as a pure historian and has additional functionality to use it as an information system could appear in both articles.