Talk:Peter Chen

Additional text

This additional text made its way to Pages Needing Translation. Maybe some of it can be incorporated into the main page.

<<

It is included as a fundamental topic in the ACM/IEEE recommended curriculum on computer science and information systems. Today, it is very likely to find at least one chapter on the ER model when a person randomly picks up a college textbook on information system design or databases. It is also very likely to walk into a college classroom to attend a class on information management and see that the ER modeling is being taught there. For example, at LSU, the ER model is being taught in 3 different colleges: the Computer Science department in College of Basic Sciences , the Information Systems and Decision Sciences Department in College of Business , and the Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing Systems Department in the College of Engineering. In other universities, the ER model is also taught in a variety of departments and colleges. For example, at Berkeley, the ER model is being taught in 2 or 3 courses at the School of Information Management. As another example, the ER model is being taught in the Computational-Biology/bioinformatics programs at University of Pennsylvania, Drexel, University of Virginia, and Hong Kong University. There are more examples of college courses covering the ER model.

Based on one particular citation database, Chen's paper is the 35th most cited article in Computer Science. It is the 4th most downloaded paper from the ACM Digital Library in January 2005 (Communications of ACM, March 2005) even though the paper was published 30 years ago.

The ER model was adopted as the meta model for the ANSI Standard in Information Resource Directory System (IRDS), and the ER approach has been ranked as the top methodology for database design and one of the top methodologies in systems development by several surveys of FORTUNE 500 companies.

The hypertext concept, which makes the World Wide Web extremely popular, is very similar to the main concept in the ER model. Dr. Peter Chen is currently investigating this linkage as an invited expert of several XML working groups of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

Professor Peter Chen's work is cited heavily in a book published in 1993 for general public called Software Challenges published by Time-Life Books as a part of the series on "Understanding Computers".

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%99%B3%E5%93%81%E5%B1%B1_peter_chen"

>> Cbdorsett 06:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious work needed

Half of it the article is about the ER model and shouldn't be here in the first place. Also, Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, and unverified claims in phrases like "mostly-cited", "significant impact", "extremely popular", "laid foundations for recent work" shouldn't be here. Let alone the fact that the author links to this wikipedia article from his personal web page so as to enhance his credibility... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.105.181.38 (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Info on Codd and Date

Need more information about Chen's involvement with Edgar Codd and Chris Date, the inventors of the relational model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.97.10 (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Software engineers vs. software engineering researchers

Regarding the recent recategorization of this article: "Software engineer" and "software engineering researcher" are not synonyms. It's analogous to the difference between an elementary school teacher, and an academic researcher who studies education. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on how you define "Software engineer" and "software engineering researcher", and for what audience you are speaking. The question here is, which definition we should use here in Wikipedia for the general audience? If guess you, from your background as a graduate student, want to make a difference between a "Software engineer" and a "software engineering researcher", why not also make a difference a of a ""software engineering technician"?

Now I in the process of making some mayor changes to the field of software engineering in Wikipedia lately in the past weeks. I have noticed in Wikipedia, that there are several definition used of systems engineer, and there are some serious strange things about it in Wikipedia. I even started a discussion about it on tow places:

• On Talk:History of software engineering#Prominent people in the history of Software Engineering
• On Template talk:Software Engineering#The listing of notable software engineers

But there are three (and more) places I didn't start a discussion (yet), but there are strange things going on here:

• One: The software engineering article is focusing for more then 80% on the systems engineer, and hardly talking about the science and practice itself. Especially in contrast to the other main engineering articles in Wikipedia.
• Two: Now this was one of the reasons I started "software engineer" article to gather all text about systems engineers on one place. In fact here (in Wikipedia) a clear definition of systems engineer should be given and eventually a differentiation in "... engineer", "... engineer researcher" and "... engineer technician", or not.
• And three: The Category:Software engineers was praticaly empty two weeks ago, and (four) for example on Wiki Commons there wasn't a category on software engineers, but now there is see here. The software engineer was practically invisible

Now I have started improving abou a dozend articles on what I consider software engineers. In all these places I consider a software engineer to be all experts related to the field of software engineer. I agree there are some serious problems here to solve.

If you want to reinstate the term "software engineering researcher" it seems a good thing to first start explaining in a Wikipedia article what is meant with that term in relation to the other terminological jungle here.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Now I just read (on the User talk:Stepheng3 page) that you presume "erroneous edit by a different editor". I think you can say "one editor" next time. Off cause I oppose the phrase "erroneous edit". I am trying to make some changes here to get a better organization and representation of software engineering in Wikipedia. Now I don't appose the use of the term "software engineering researcher" in Wikipedia, in the category and in all kinds of different (biographical) articles. If we do, I do think we have the obligation to explain what we mean with that term, more then just the phrase "Computer scientists who do academic research", all though that is a good start. Maybe eventually I will agree reusing this category, but at the moment I have some other priorities.

I already explained in Category:Software engineering researchers that a software engineering researcher is a computer scientist who does research on software engineering. Short of defining "research" and "computer scientist" (which are defined in other articles already), I'm not sure what else I can say, but feel free to improve it. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good description, and I don't oppose the category as long as you keep the Category:Software engineers in place for now. Maybe in a few weeks I agree on emptying that category, but at the moment I am working on it.

As to your question, I guess, it would be nice to know a little more about what software engineering research is about. Edsger W. Dijkstra saw the fundamental problem of translating a problem into a computer programm. Nowadays the focuss is more on software development methodology. A lot of people contribution in this field seems people from practice, and not from the university.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I think all people listed in the Template:Software Engineering could also be listed in the Category:Software engineering researchers..!?

I wasn't attempting to empty Category:Software engineers category. I just thought (back when I edited it a year ago) that this particular article, Peter Chen, belonged in Category:Software engineering researchers and not Category:Software engineers. SparsityProblem (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I made that suggestion. I agree that Peter Chen and other academics could belong in that category. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I repopulized the Category:Software engineering researchers with people both software engineer and academic, assuming they all specialize in software engineering researchers. Maybe you could check!?

I looked at all the articles you added to that category and they all look appropriate, except for Jeromy Carriere, which I recategorized under "Software engineers". Thanks for your effort! SparsityProblem (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Chen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913120424/http://stn.nsc.gov.tw/en/view_detail.asp?doc_uid=0930812007 to http://stn.nsc.gov.tw/en/view_detail.asp?doc_uid=0930812007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Section on scientific misconduct

A section on Chen’s retracted papers because of fake peer-reviews he was part of should be included. SAGE has a statement here and Retraction Watch has an outdated, but relevant, post here. Noogiegoon (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)