RE: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Mark,

I think your replies illustrate the disconnect here - and why
on the conference call last week - I specifically said we
need to get the requirements fleshed out up front, as
a standalone document - that will direct the technical
implementation efforts.

I think there are two schools of thought:

1) The CCTS team thinks the registry team is building
     something exclusively for them - and noone else.
     The CCTS have a document with their requirements
      somewhat defined in it.   Having registry support
      for CCTS advances CCTS beyond theory and into
      actual vendor implementations and is therefore 
      promoting CCTS use.  Part of the exercise is the
      cross-check if the RIM can support the functionality
      CCTS is demanding, while understanding what is
      minimally required, as opposed to an open-ended
      function set.

2) The Registry team needs to address users of the
     registry in the broad sense.  CCTS is one part of 
     that.   Having a serialization mechanism in XML is 
     a specific need for users to store semantic 
     components into the registry.  Having a common
     format that meets a broad range of related needs
     establishes a consistent content mechanism that
     can be widely supported.   It also establishes a
     model that other non-normative uses can follow
     for further tailored applications.   Having formal
     means to extend registry in this way promotes
     the use of registry.

My vote is for 2) - not 1) - as a means to fulfil the
charter here, and reaching agreement with CCTS
on what a V1.0 looks like - and specifically what
business goals that achieves for end users - 
and not trying to drink the entire ocean at one
gulp.

Thanks, DW.