Talk:DASH7

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Move table

Table comparing DASH to other wireless technologies should be moved to the article titled LPWAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.112.47.198 (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

All dash7.org links are dead. Please replace or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.222.91 (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct -> I removed them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maartenweyn (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is biased in favor of DASH7?

Article seems to be self-promotional and biased if favor of DASH7:

No downsides of technology are stated anywhere:

DASH7 is not compared with NFC (ISO/IEC 18000-3 air interface) or other RFID technologies, but is compared only to the ZigBee (based on IEEE 802.15.4, intended for wireless personal area networks).
ZigBee and DASH7 comparison may be justified in certain applications. But no ZigBee functionality (e.g. forming mesh-networks), which DASH7 doesn't have, is brought up.

This seems to be done on purpose, to avoid mentioning any downsides of the technology in comparison with other solutions.

Some references, from the sources don't mention DASH7 at all, but still are brought up as a references (see below).
No links to hardware, which clearly supports DASH7, not only ISO/IEC 18000-7 or even only 433MHz frequency band.

In my opinion, those are the main problems of the article, which make me doubt article objectivity and correctness of the claims made in the text. Seldwiki (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This IEEE spectrum article, providing an overview of DASH7, seems to be written from a more neutral point of view, than the article in Wikipedia in its current state:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/dash7-wireless-networking-gains-momentum

Seldwiki (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analog Devices ADuCRF101 reference is not relevant

Some statements in the article, have references, which are not clearly relevant to these statements.

"Analog Devices also announced their ADuCRF101 single chip solution for DASH7 in November 2010."

Given link is broken (http://investor.analog.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=95455&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1493067&highlight=), while working link to the same product does not mention DASH7, neither ISO/IEC 18000-7 (http://www.analog.com/en/processors-dsp/analog-microcontrollers/aducrf101/processors/product.html):

"The ADuCRF101 is a fully integrated data acquisition solution designed for low power wireless applications. It features an 14-bit ADC, a low power Cortex™-M3 core from ARM®, a 431-464 MHz and 862-928 MHz RF transceiver, and Flash/EE memory, packaged in a 9 mm x 9 mm LFCSP."

Seldwiki (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Maartenweyn (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DASH7 vs ISO/IEC 18000-7

References used in the article assume that DASH7 is the same as ISO/IEC 18000-7, e.g.

"In January 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the largest RFID award in history, a $429 million contract for DASH7 devices"

"DASH7 is being used extensively by the U. S. Department of Defense (DoD) and other militaries. In January 2009, DoD awarded a $429 million contract for DASH7 devices, making it one of the largest wireless sensor networking deployments in the world, especially when combined with DoD's $500 million + installed base of non-DASH7 infrastructure which DoD is upgrading to DASH7."

While article referenced in both clauses does not mention DASH7 at all(http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/4539):

"After more than two years of requests and reviews, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has chosen four prime contractors to compete for orders under its RFID III contract, which calls for active 433.92 MHz RFID tags and interrogators compliant with the ISO 18000-7 standard."

I suppose that link is more appropriate in the article about ISO/IEC 18000-7, not DASH7. Or it should be clearly stated in the article that DASH7 is the same as ISO/IEC 18000-7. But as I understood, it is not, so what applies to ISO/IEC 18000-7, does not necessarily apply to DASH7. Seldwiki (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still there for historical reasons, but the current alliance supports only the dash7 alliance mode which is not compliant with ISO/IEC 18000-7 any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maartenweyn (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All text on applications of 18000-7 are removed, only the historical link is kept Maartenweyn (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DASH7 = RFID III?

The RFID Journal link refers to RFID III. Is this the same as DASH7? Peter Chastain (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- DASH7 is the technology required as part of RFID III, it's not = to RFID III, however.

- the flag on this article saying it lacks third party sources is a bit confusing since there are quite a few of those. the rest of the flags are being addressed now ...

- page reads accurate to me - would like to see reference to BLAST somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon Vandenberg (talk • contribs) 23:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- BLAST is a abbreviation invented by the DASH7 Alliance so there is no reference available. Maartenweyn (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I removed the RFID III part and the defence applications part since they use ISO 18000-7, not DASH7. Maartenweyn (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://ht.ly/2jZVO
Triggered by \bht\.ly\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/Paste

It seems that parts of this articles are pure copy/paste from a book called "RFID: High-impact Strategies - What You Need to Know: Definitions, Adoptions, Impact, Benefits, Maturity, Vendors " from Kevin Roebuck. You can find an example here: Google Book Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.59.198 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on which part?Maartenweyn (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]