Talk:BIOS - Revision history

Dan Tobias at 02:01, 28 November 2012

2012-11-28T02:01:03Z

Maurice.de.rooij: added reply

2012-11-27T15:27:43Z

added reply

Dan Tobias: Created page with "Where does this fit in the ontology? It's currently labeled Hardware, but there's no menu for that at the present. And if there was, would it belong in [[Physical File For..."

2012-11-27T15:02:29Z

Created page with "Where does this fit in the ontology? It's currently labeled Hardware, but there's no menu for that at the present. And if there was, would it belong in [[Physical File For..."

New page

Where does this fit in the ontology? It's currently labeled [[Hardware]], but there's no menu for that at the present. And if there was, would it belong in [[Physical File Formats]] rather than [[Electronic File Formats]]? Or does it belong somewhere around [[Operating Systems]]? [[User:Dan Tobias|Dan Tobias]] ([[User talk:Dan Tobias|talk]]) 15:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:01, 28 November 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Where does this fit in the ontology? It's currently labeled [[Hardware]], but there's no menu for that at the present. And if there was, would it belong in [[Physical File Formats]] rather than [[Electronic File Formats]]? Or does it belong somewhere around [[Operating Systems]]? [[User:Dan Tobias\|Dan Tobias]] ([[User talk:Dan Tobias\|talk]]) 15:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)		Where does this fit in the ontology? It's currently labeled [[Hardware]], but there's no menu for that at the present. And if there was, would it belong in [[Physical File Formats]] rather than [[Electronic File Formats]]? Or does it belong somewhere around [[Operating Systems]]? [[User:Dan Tobias\|Dan Tobias]] ([[User talk:Dan Tobias\|talk]]) 15:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
	: IMHO hardware should be in the ontology as well, since hardware can have code inside (eg. firmware). Think it should belong to Physical file formats and both Electronic file formats, but not Operating systems since it is at a lower level than the OS [[User:Maurice.de.rooij\|Maurice.de.rooij]] ([[User talk:Maurice.de.rooij\|talk]]) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)		: IMHO hardware should be in the ontology as well, since hardware can have code inside (eg. firmware). Think it should belong to Physical file formats and both Electronic file formats, but not Operating systems since it is at a lower level than the OS [[User:Maurice.de.rooij\|Maurice.de.rooij]] ([[User talk:Maurice.de.rooij\|talk]]) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
		+	::I guess the physical ROMs would be under the "physical formats" section (probably "ROM chip" should be a menu there), while the contents (e.g., BIOS) would be an electronic format. [[User:Dan Tobias\|Dan Tobias]] ([[User talk:Dan Tobias\|talk]]) 02:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 27 November 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Where does this fit in the ontology? It's currently labeled [[Hardware]], but there's no menu for that at the present. And if there was, would it belong in [[Physical File Formats]] rather than [[Electronic File Formats]]? Or does it belong somewhere around [[Operating Systems]]? [[User:Dan Tobias\|Dan Tobias]] ([[User talk:Dan Tobias\|talk]]) 15:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)		Where does this fit in the ontology? It's currently labeled [[Hardware]], but there's no menu for that at the present. And if there was, would it belong in [[Physical File Formats]] rather than [[Electronic File Formats]]? Or does it belong somewhere around [[Operating Systems]]? [[User:Dan Tobias\|Dan Tobias]] ([[User talk:Dan Tobias\|talk]]) 15:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
		+	: IMHO hardware should be in the ontology as well, since hardware can have code inside (eg. firmware). Think it should belong to Physical file formats and both Electronic file formats, but not Operating systems since it is at a lower level than the OS [[User:Maurice.de.rooij\|Maurice.de.rooij]] ([[User talk:Maurice.de.rooij\|talk]]) 15:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)