Talk:Laboratory information management system/Archives/2015

SOA!

What is "SOA" in the paragrahph about Web 2.0 stuff supposed to be. The link goes to a disambiguation page that appears to contain nothing relevant. Or should it be SOAP, which would make more sense in this context? Glimfeather (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

SOA - Service Orientated Architecture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.175.100 (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Loking again at the paragraph mentioned above the whole thing needs qualification. The assertion "in fact" needs to be substantiated or the sentence needs to be re-written; otherwise the entry should be marked as "original research". 213.208.87.130 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't be so strict regarding "original research", but evolving of LIMS software into "laboratory ERP" is rather independent of use of SOA techniques or lack of it. --bonzi (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I must say, the definition of LIMS has progressively gotten worse through the editing process over the years hear on Wikipedia. Folks have edited out everything and anything of any use to the point that the definition of LIMS should simply be removed from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lablynx (talk • contribs) 01:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That's what happens when editors post copyrighted material in violation of copyright laws and Wiki rules. It is simply deleted, leaving not much behind. I would agree that the existing article should either be improved or deleted. Bob98133 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that in this case the major deletion happened because of an error. The information has most probably not been in violation of any copyright. I am not good at editing Wiki's when the idea would be to get back information that was edited out quite a bit down the line of changes. --Fmalcus (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thick-client security claims

The reference (O'Leary 2008) for the section on thick-clients makes a claim of improved security due to the apparent requirement of having client-side software installed in order to access server data. There are two problems with this argument:

1. Any client-server protocol can be mimicked in order to negate the need for client-side installation.
2. Even without the ability to mimic the protocol, the need to purchase software is not a security feature as it is merely a method of obscuring data access.

Even in the reference the claim is qualified with "somewhat enhanced". It is dubious at best and I think best removed, but would appreciate other's opinions / alternate citations. Aschlosberg (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's certainly not helpful in a wikipedia article about LIMS. While you could very well make an argument between two specific LIMS systems, one thick and one thin, you can't compare the whole of the market this way. Some client-side software will offer additional protection, some is old and won't. --Cptbigglesworth266 (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've modified the section accordingly. Aschlosberg (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that's all very well, but you've replaced a poorly sourced claim with a full-blown polemic. This page is not the right place to write a short essay on data security. --Cptbigglesworth266 (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)