Talk:Semantic parameterization
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Original research
editThis article does not violate the Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest policy, which states: Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies.
Furthermore, the primary source is published in a respected journal, which conforms to the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself policy: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy.
Changes made by this editor to this article are in the third person, are neutral and incorporate references to the published work of others. User:Tdbreaux 18:41, 13 November 2008
- Ok, you changed the reference which was one of my main concerns. You can't base a Wikipedia article on a publication, which hasn't been published yet.
- Now I still think this is original research and there is a conflickt of interest, because there aren't any indepentend third-party sources confirming "Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process developed by Travis Breaux". Travis Breaux seems to be using this article to get this fact confirmed. And that is not the way it should work. Only if notable independend third party sources confirm this fact, it should be mentioned here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the article on semantic parameterization made by this editor constitute a summary, not a reproduction, of earlier work that was previously published in an independent, peer-reviewed journal. By definition, this summary is not original research. In addition, the fact in dispute has been confirmed by notable third parties in the following five independently authored and published sources:
[1] Discovering and Understanding the Multi-dimensional Correlations among Regulatory Requirements with Applications to Risk Assessment, R.A. Ghandi, PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, May 2008.
[2] "Annotating Regulations Using Cerno: An Application to Italian Documents." N. Zeni, N. Kiyavitskaya, J.R. Cordy, L. Mich, J. Mylopoulos, 3rd International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security,' pp. 1437-1442, 2008.
[3] "Towards a Framework for Tracking Legal Compliance in Healthcare." S. Ghanavati, D. Amyot, L. Peyton. Advanced Information Systems Engineering, LNCS vol. 4495/2007, pp. 218-232, 2007.
[4] Compliance Framework for Business Processes Based on URN A, S. Ghanavati, Masters Thesis, Ottawa University of Canada, May 2007.
[5] "A Requirements Management Framework for Privacy Compliance." S. Ghanavati, D. Amyot, L. Peyton. 10th Workshop on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, Canada, May 17-18, 2007, pp. 149-159. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.21.35 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry. These contempary sources doesn't seems enough... and the 4th a master thesis...!? and 3th and 5th of the same author. I have add my concerns with a couple of templates. Now you have removed them, I have add an other. Maybe some else can give a better judgement here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)