Talk:Complex event processing

message: In line with and to be with consistent with the "not mentioning products" debate above, if 3rd party products are to be removed then so should the academic research sections (which are information for research projects that are often closely related to products, or may be made available as research products). PS: I don't actually believe this, but academic research is funded work and therefore a type of commercial product by academia, so it makes little sense to mention academic R&D and not "commercial" R&D (products) in the debate above. 207.59.166.194 11:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Academic research is not the same as commercial products.  Commercial products exist to make money, and often the underlying Intellectual Property is not disclosed and cannot be freely used by other entities.  The aim of academic research is to further knowledge.  It's always funded, but the results of the research are not "owned" by the funder. If the research results were not available to the general public, or were subject to restrictions, then I would agree that an academic link should be questioned and probably excluded.  Bardcom 01:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bardcom, you seem to be associating "links on Wiki" with "public domain information on details of implementation". For this comment to be valid, please point out the appropriate Wiki policies for this association? By counterexample, I point out ERP and RDBMS Isvana (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isvana, I'm arguing the inclusion of academic links on the grounds that in most cases the research is fully available to the public, and the links to the projects to not exist to sell a product or services.  Vendor links are against wikipedia policy - this is not an "interpretation", it's the policy.  Other pages can sometimes breach policy, please feel free to clean other pages too and help make Wikipedia the best source of neutral encyclopedic articles Bardcom (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bardcom: can you explain further why it is necessary for Wikipedia references to an entity to require "[their] research is fully available to the public"? Seems this would remove all links to ANY company (and possibly by extension an academic institution that advertises research to encourage paying students to attend, etc). Also, do you not agree that the links to vendors sites are not to "order pages"? I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between your stance and what can be construed as anti-commercial bias. But you know of a policy statement akin to "there shall be no link to a website associated with a commercial ie paid-for product" on Wiki - so please point it out to me with the text, 'cos I haven't found it yet (which could well be myopia!). Thanks in advance! Isvana (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isvana, Wikipedia allows an article on *any* subject, so long as the subject is notable.  For that reason, it's perfectly legit to have an article on a commercial company, or to compare a list of features of products from commercial companies, etc.  So long as all statements can be verified and are attributable.  But when an article is about a subject, WP:EL makes it very clear what you can or cannot link to, backed up with WP:NPOV.  So you can't link to a website where the primary purpose is to sell or promote stuff - that's clear policy.  Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not research, or opinion.  Getting back to your question - academic references are nearly always pointing to freely available research, and in the case of the CEP article, are very relevant to the underlying founding thoughts and ideas.  They are often referenced in CEP-related articles and discussions and many found the basis for some of the commercial products today.  It's background information on the topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardcom (talk • contribs) 11:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks Bardcom: for sure WP:EL para1 states that external research is acceptable links (although I was thinking less of links, more of references in text). For example: if I mentioned companyX did original research into conceptY, but did not link to X, would WP:EL apply? WP:NPOV implies that of companyX and universityW did the research into conceptY jointly, then they should both be mentioned. A case in point here for example is the IBM Amit R&D project. This is research, creating what may have been the 1st ECA-rule CEP system. Why isn't it mentioned? Do IBM competitors object to the "fact"? IMHO one is *breaking* WP:NPOV by not crediting commerical (as well as academic) institutions. Or have I missed / misread the appropriate policy? Isvana (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Isvana, it's OK to mention the names of companies, so long as it is relevant and neutral.  No links to commercial websites where the purpose of the website is purely commercial.  If IBM's Amit R&D Project has a webpage, and it doesn't exist primarily to sell products and services, then in my opinion I don't see why it would be an objectionable link.  Post a link here if you like... Bardcom (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic Research

message: An early attempt at this was removed by Bardcom (see above). This section suggests a rationale for including or excluding this in the CEP article.Isvana (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Association with EDA

message: 1. EDA implies no explicit control structure; CEP implies no implicit control structure for the events being fed into it. Therefore any CEP app can be considered EDA for the event feeds it uses.Isvana (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion

message: 1. Academic or commercial references for points made in Inclusion? Isvana (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclusion

message: Given the fundamental disagreements between some editors here, the thought occurs that perhaps the editors are looking at different perspectives... for example, there is stingent disagreement about mentioning vendor names in this article - a perfectly valid response for a "concept" discussion, and perfectly invalid response for a "technology" discussion. 
The only problem with this idea is that the author of the term describes it (see The Power Of Events) as "a defined set of tools and techniques". So really the concept is subservient to the technology. So a proposal here would be:
* Rename this entry Complex Event Processing (Concept)
* Reference it in a new entry Complex Event Processing (Technology and Tools)
A bit radical I know, but this way both camps can be accomodated, while updating Wikipedia to match the current literature. Isvana (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, I am NOT of the opinion that "vendor names" NEED to be in a technology discussion; however they should not necessarily be banned. However, entries like references to List of CEP vendors are clearly technology related. Isvana (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Mentioning vendor names adds nothing to most articles, and quickly turns into a race for each vendor to use wikipedia as a marketing platform - from "Let's rename our old stuff" companies to "Next hot thing" companies and everything in between.  All you have to do is look at the article before it was cleaned up - it was a joke!  Before mentioning or including a vendor name, ask yourself whether it adds anything to the article.  Can the information be imparted without mentioning vendor names? (Hint: for the main CEP article, the answer is "Yes". )  Your idea to create a "Technology and Tools" page is just one more effort to try to reward and facilitate the inappropriate behaviour of vendors to hijack Wikipedia articles.  Can you write an article on "Technology and Tools" without mentioning vendors?  Absolutely!  But if you want to create a "platform" where vendors put in their claims, and try to compare "favorably" in the general market - essentially position the article to act as a poor mans substitute for some real research, then this suggestion will be jumped on by a certain type of vendor.  I think it's "interesting" to note that ever since the article has been cleaned up, very little has been added or extended - one might jump to the conclusion that vendors only contribute when they see their own name.... Bardcom (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lots of good points raised here so lets go through them, hopefully retaining context Isvana (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *"Mentioning vendor names adds nothing to most articles" Agree Isvana (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *"...and quickly turns into a race for each vendor to use wikipedia as a marketing platform - from "Let's rename our old stuff" companies to "Next hot thing" companies and everything in between"Thats a valid fear. Luckily this is a wiki so such rubbish can be edited out easily. Isvana (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *"All you have to do is look at the article before it was cleaned up - it was a joke!" There were certainly some references to "associated technologies" as opposed to CEP tools, for example. But that was my point: someone, even maybe a marketing bod, but possibly an end-user, contributed something to the Wiki page. Looking at some of the entries, like caching technologies, it seems to me that this should have been REPLACED with a link to Cache technology for events (side comment - looks like a hole in Wikipedia here), ideally with an explanation as to why (or why its dubiously) connected to CEP. In other words some thoughtful editing would improve this article much more than boolean cuts. IMHO. Isvana (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *"Before mentioning or including a vendor name, ask yourself whether it adds anything to the article. (Hint: for the main CEP article, the answer is "Yes". )" Fully agree. Isvana (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *"Your idea to create a "Technology and Tools" page is just one more effort to try to reward and facilitate the inappropriate behaviour of vendors to hijack Wikipedia articles.  Can you write an article on "Technology and Tools" without mentioning vendors?" That seems like a baseless accusation, but regardless, the goal of splitting the subject would be to add structure, and try and provide concensus. For example: technologies include queries, processes, rules, caches, event middleware etc etc. These should be discussed, and examples given. But in a separate page? Could be a bad idea. The only rationale I have at present is that vendor names might be more easily agreed as verboten in a conceptual discussion, but might be more difficult to avoid in a technologies and tools discussion. Having said that, the ideal scenario would be that the vendor implementation details would all be deferrable to the List of CEP vendors page - if you like, the details discussed here could form the columns for describing available tooling. That way everybody should be satisfied. Isvana (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *"But if you want to create a "platform" where vendors put in their claims, and try to compare "favorably" in the general market - essentially position the article to act as a poor mans substitute for some real research, then this suggestion will be jumped on by a certain type of vendor." No, that isn't the intent. Note that the worst fate a vendor can ensure for itself is to make provable exaggerated claims in a public forum! Isvana (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: *"I think it's "interesting" to note that ever since the article has been cleaned up, very little has been added or extended - one might jump to the conclusion that vendors only contribute when they see their own name...." Another valid interpretation is that aggressive editing has dissuaded any academic and commercial experts from contributing to Wiki. From some of the comments seen on the Yahoo CEP group (and private emails I've received - including non-vendors and end-users), indicate lots of frustration with past discussions on this page - partly my motivation for commenting(/and hopefully contributing) here, of course. Isvana (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Hans, unfortunately the page entitled "List of CEP Vendors" was deleted by a wikipedia administrator.  There was a discussion beforehand where people could contribute their views. Bardcom (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * In terms of aggressive editing, we are not even able to put a link to the only open source CEP product (Esper/NEsper) because, although it is available under GPL, the company also offers paid support. Editing may be thankless, but that is still going too far. Hgilde (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Hans, it's unfortunate that many people disagree with the external linking policy and are using the term "aggressive editting" to imply that the editting is being done somewhat improperly.  I encourage anybody that feels strongly on this matter to make a request for arbitration.  It's a simple process, and I'd personally welcome it. Bardcom (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may offer my input (which is easily ignored), I'd counsel that WP:RfAR is considered the last step in dispute resolution. They will generally expect that other steps in dispute resolution have been attempted first. There are two issues - first, I believe that User:Bardcom has concerns regarding the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CEP vendors and the subsequent deletion of List of CEP vendors. The first step for that issue would be to seek a review of this closure. This can be done at WP:DRV. The second issue is a little more broad, and has to do with WP:EL policy in general and whether it is being applied properly here. First, I would ask that all parties become familiar with WP:EL so the discussion can begin from common ground. Then, I think the next step to pursue would be to seek a third opinion, or, possibly, to seek mediation. I believe an immediate appeal to ArbCom is not appropriate until a more serious effort at dispute resolution is attempted. Ronnotel (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ronnotel. Its useful to get a concise process definition with links. Isvana (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Way Forward (2)

message: An editor has asked for a deletion review of :List of CEP Vendors. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bardcom (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Isvana, I wondered where you'd disappeared to.  Even more interesting was a subsequent keep decision for WP:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ERP_vendors.  Bardcom (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Review for [[:List of CEP Vendors]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Complex event processing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512000929/http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;918976660;fp;4;fpid;1398720840 to http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;918976660;fp;4;fpid;1398720840
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified