Talk:Operational historian: Difference between revisions

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)

(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)

The EtaPRO example I referenced has now been clarified by the new reference describing the EtaPRO Platform. The historian module EPArchive is now explicitly identified and there is no longer any mention of any support for external historians in the brochure for the latest release (10.2) of EtaPRO.My Gussie (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Table to describe Historian Software

It probably makes sense to replace the list of software with a table. Any thoughts? What are the headings we would have? One should be "SaaS available".My Gussie (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please revert changes after 705863388 and re-apply additions from IPs

Ushkin N (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)