Talk:ISO 25178

"Watersheds method"

References in the areal surface roughness literature to "watersheds" (plural) method may be specific to articles translated from the French. In English, the common term for the image processing technique is "watershed" (singular), and the article now links to the existing article on watershed segmentation. -174.63.125.43 (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

I have deleted a commercial link that was not relevant (just advertising). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.62.109 (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing parameters

The section on the new areal parameters is missing several parameters, including the fractal parameters and the surface versions of the profile parameters defined in ISO 13565-2,-3. Also, can anyone lend any insight onto where the line is drawn regarding respecting copyright of the ISO publication? --Wikeithpedia (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "where the line is drawn regarding respecting copyright of the ISO publication"? Wizard191 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ISO has a copyright on the standard itself. Standard documents are usually both concise and technical, and so it can be difficult to accurately extract their content without quoting verbatim. One clear example are mathematical formulas. I am new to this whole area of copyright, and I don't understand it. (For instance, I don't understand how a law that allows copyright of mathematical formulas cannot logically lead to some nonsensical situations.) So I have been erring on the side of caution: under the assumption that any information already published here must have already been approved (by someone more expert than I am) for publication, I've only edited existing information in this article that I found to be inaccurate; I have not added any new information. But I would like to add new information. So I would appreciate any guidance anyone might have regarding legally/ethically publishing information about technical standards such as those from ISO. --Wikeithpedia (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your difficulty as most reliable sources (RS) are well written and concise. However we cannot copy them verbatim as that is a copyright issue. Instead we must "put it in our own words" while maintaining the same meaning. It can be tough at times, but I'm sure you are up to the task. For Wikipedia policies and guidelines on the matter see: WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:COPYVIO. Wizard191 (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]