Talk:Canonical model

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not a proper noun and I have moved the disam page to make way for the tech move. Thanks. ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The page now at Canonical Model looks to be entirely about information architecture. How do you want to handle that? One could suggest that the present page should be renamed Canonical model (design pattern) or Canonical model (information architecture). It seems unlikely that the IA sense of the term is the primary topic of 'canonical model' since it is so specialized. It is arguable that the DAB page should be at 'Canonical model.' In my opinion this could still be done as a technical move if the obvious questions are addressed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support this move as it makes sense as explained. DeistCosmos (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support any move away from Canonical Model as it is not a proper noun.--ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it should have been a technical request as there is no possible controversy here. Dicklyon (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clearer English required

The article seems at odds with Wikipedia's guidelines on readability and clarity. For example: "it is intended to reduce costs and standardize on agreed data definitions associated with integrating business systems". Eh? It is not clear whether "integrating" is used verbally or adjectivally, and the article's language is elsewhere similarly vague and imprecise. Could somebody with the relevant knowledge remove some of the sweeping generalisations and reword the article in plain English, avoiding business jargon as far as possible? Otherwise,it simply "preaches to the converted" and leaves the uninitiated none the wiser. Humboles (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right

So..."A canonical model is any model that is canonical in nature". Thanks. Great help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.100.28 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley shome mishtake

From the lede "The desire for consistent message payload results in the construction of an enterprise or business domain canonical model common view within a given context." then later on "The desire for consistent message payload results in the construction of an enterprise form of XML schema built from the common model objects thus providing the desired consistency and re-usability while ensuring data integrity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.100.28 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LoganDietz: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logandietz (talk • contribs) 18:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC) A "Canonical Model" is a model constructed by two entities to merge their independent technologies or expertise into a single product to be produced.[reply]

"intelligent bus". That is a buzz-word. I suggest removing this sentence.

The individual modules can then be considered endpoints on an intelligent bus; the bus centralises all the data-translation intelligence. 31.151.58.59 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]