Talk:Model-based definition

Model-based definition

Is this marketing text someone from the selling company inserted into Wikipedia? Phrases like "represents a new trend" and "we are now able" and the mention of a single company (Right Hemisphere) make me suspicious.

This article makes unsubstantiated claims about model-based definition, such as "we are now able to insert the dimensions, GD&T and annotations directly into the CAD model, thus eliminating the need for drawings." Based on my observations at CAD user meetings from all major vendors. Few companies have eliminated drawings from their manufacturing processes even if a 3D CAD model is used as the geometry master. Model-based definition remains an emerging technology that manufacturers are learning to adopt.Cyon Steve (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it makes sense. 10 yrs ago this was not possible. i don't believe it's marketing. But it doesn't observe good writing practices. Theres is an ASME standard: and it embraces "reduced dimension drawings" as well as full model based stuff. I believe that the reason for not going to straight MBD is more of a cultural, polital, or infrastructure thing. The key is the technology exists. This wasn't true until fairly recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.12.121.254 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm wikifying the article. It was not well written. I believe I have the introduction done OK (it could use some more links or additional explanation for industry specific terms). I'll work on the rest of the article, likely usings many of the external links as references for added content. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 19:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional source article

Here is an additional source article that maybe be used to improve this wiki article over time: http://www.qualitymag.com/Articles/Supplement/08b4a4342ac8c010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____ — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 16:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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 Consensus currently appears to be against the move Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Model-based definition → Model Based Definition relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC) – I'm nore really sure why the article was originally moved from "Model Based Definition" to "Model-based definition", however, this action was incorrect, and no explanation was provided on the talk page. First, the addition of the hyphen is *so* uncommon, I only found one obsure source that spells it this way. Second, the term is a single term and not a phrase. As such, it should be capitalized appropriately. This form of capitalization is common in the Engineering field. It is usually incorrect to show Engineering terms decapitalized. I know this goes against everything that some Wikipeans believe (myself included), but it is really the correct form in this instance (and many others). — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 17:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, the title is very definitely a phrase. A Googlebooks search on "model based definition" (restricted to 21st century) shows that the phrase is normally lower-cased in current use, and hyphenated in the standard way that WP:MOS recommends (see WP:HYPHEN). If it is often treated differently in the domain of this article, then that should be overridden by the dominant conventions. These have evolved to keep the meaning clear for non-specialists; and they are recommended in Wikipedia style guidelines because Wikipedia is not written for cliques of specialists but to communicate plainly to a worldwide generalist readership. Noetica^Tea? 19:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Of the list found within the Google search from the above comment, only a couple are in reference to this topic, one shows "Model Based Defintion" as a subject matter by the Society of Manufacturing Engineers and the other "model-base definition" by a person that doesn't formally represent any authoritative body on the subject. Most other uses of the words in that search are not actual unique terms but simply adjectives for other subjects, or are of different disiplines where the term is being used as a name for a completely different process. Because of this, however, I modify my original request to add the "(engineering)" after the heading of this article to separate it from software and medical topics and the formation of a disamg page if/when other articles are created for the other topics that go by the same name in other fields. As for the accessability to the masses argument above, most people use Headline method of capitalization these days. It's actually confusing to many people to see decap'd titles. Although I understand the logic behind the Wikipedia policy, it is among a rapidly shrinking body of work that doesn't use Headline capitalization for titles and names. In this case, I'm not going to try to change WP on the capitalization topic, but I do ask we respect the industry from which the topic is from. However, as a compromise, I would be in favor of leaving decap'd title, but with removal of the hyphen: Model based definition (engineering)

• Oppose – it's unclear what nom means by "a single term and not a phrase", or why he asserts that "it is usually incorrect to show engineering terms decapitalized." The lower-case and hyphenated forms are not uncommon in sources, e.g. these scholarly papers: [1], [2], [3]. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

::sigh:: google is your friend

I understand the hats in the context of what was included in the article, but sources abound for this topic. I even listed one above. Anyway, let's finish this article up. — fcsuper ^{(How's That?, That's How!)} _{(Exclusionistic Immediatist )} — 21:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Working on building a sources list:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100020945.pdf

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2072758&CFID=519470459&CFTOKEN=46945593 (full access unavailable for free)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166361510000060 (full access unavailable for free)

http://www.scientific.net/AMR.945-949.30 (full access unavailable for free)

http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/industry/select/042808_cadcamnet_model_based_definition.htm (full access unavailable for free)

http://www.amazon.com/Re-Use-Your-CAD-Model-Based-model-based/dp/1494877171/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406670020&sr=1-3&keywords=%22model+based+definition%22 (book)

http://www.enu.kz/repository/2010/AIAA-2010-3138.pdf

http://www.designworldonline.com/3d-pdf-is-important-again/#_

http://www.qualitymag.com/articles/84810-embrace-model-based-definition

and file:///C:/Users/mlorono/Downloads/MIL-STD-31000.PDF under the alternative term, DPD.

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 3D PDF also supports annotation data.png
• MBD (Model-Based Definition) Kompas 3d STEP AP242.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• QIF 3.0 contains PMI data.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)