Talk:Body of knowledge

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Epistemology Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 15 May 2018.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Ye348.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGE REQUESTS

"Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) from the APM – for those following the project management discipline."

Afaik, this ought to be "... from the PMI ..." (otherwise/additionally, APM BoK) -- Fbahr 16:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguable statement

I cannot agree with statement without citation:

...usually made up of knowledge areas that represent a taxonomy of relevant concepts.

IMHO (I'll promise to find source) the best representation for BOK should be Ontolgy (computer science) --AndriuZ (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked to describe BOK as an Ontology rather than a Taxonomy, as suggested. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be better as a disambiguation page?

Greetings all, I am working on various ASCE and civil engineering articles... Given that a number of professions have adopted "bodies of knowledge" why not separate the philosophical main article from the various professional applications such as the ASCE CEBoK? I would propose separating the two, leaving a philosophical article on the concept and a second, separate disambiguation page for various professional bodies. Thoughts? Cheers ... Risk Engineer (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Ye348 (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)IS there a reason that so many of the citations and links don't seem to work?[reply]

There could be more information presented about the ontology for a specific domain and how it ties into bodies of knowledge. (hrk269 Hrk269 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The multiple definitions are a bit confusing. A explanation or a sentence or two to tie the definitions together would be helpful. Ajain1458 (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Ankita Jain[reply]

A few of the links within the article was not working, the author needs to review the article and make the necessary edit to correct this. camie22 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)~[reply]

Comments

I like the way that you gives different definitions about what "Body of knowledge" means. There are several sources for reference. — HKK123 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very short and quite disordered. More research needs to be done on the topic to produce a better article. Beski001 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the (1) and (2) on the first bullet point in the list in the summary. I also took out the (a) and (b) in the second bullet point. This was done to prevent confusion as to whether they were supposed to be new bullet points or not.Beski001 (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be against my adding to the list every time I find a new example?

At what point should "List of Bodies of Knowledge" be spun out into its own article? Can I include similar documents, like ACM's computing curricula recommendations? Should I stick to BoKs published by knowledge organizations, or can I include some from individual authors? Perhaps as a second list? Knowledge organization fascinates me and lately I've started collecting BoKs and related documents. I would be happy to add them to the list here with references if that would be appropriate. Hortond00 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]