Re: Tactical Proposal: Split V2 work items into V2 and V3 (repost)

[Scott Hinkelman <srh@us.ibm.com>]

My only comment on this, would be to consider options for any alignment
with, or work that can be done
collectively, to produce a clear positioning with UDDI before the first TC
Specification post ebXML intiative exit.
The motivation for this, which I believe outweighs any current
implementation-oriented issues,
is that it would be more difficult to take such action after a TC
Specification, and an ever increasingly
clear picture with UDDI is the key issue for adoption, beyond features.

Thanks,
Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
XML Industry Enablement
IBM e-business Standards Strategy
512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074



Lisa Carnahan <lisa.carnahan@nist.gov> on 08/21/2001 06:46:04 AM

To:   regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:  Re: Tactical Proposal: Split V2 work items into V2 and V3
      (repost)




Hello All,

I'd like to see some discussion regarding this proposal.  Good, bad, ugly?

--lisa

At 03:16 PM 8/17/2001 -0400, Farrukh Najmi wrote:

>Repost: for some reason last post has not shown now for several hours on
>the list.
>
>Team,
>
>I would like to propose that we split the candidate work items for what
>we know as OASIS ebXML Registry V2.0 into two separate releases (V2.0
>and V3.0). V2.0 would contain a sub-set of those work items that are
>most vitally needed to help implementations of the registry and registry
>
>clients.
>
>Motivation
>-----------
>
>-Help implementations by addressing issues that are barrier to adoption
>-Deliver those features that are key to adoption ASAP
>
>The remainder of this email proposes specific recommendations.
>
>Proposed Content for V2
>--------------------------
>
>-Registry Information Model enhancements
>-Registry as Web Service deliverables
>-Security team deliverables
>
>Proposed Content for V3
>------------------------
>
>All other work items would be opart of V3. Work would continue on V3
>items in parrallel with V2 items as planned before this proposal. If
>people have split responsibilities they would place greater emphasis on
>V2 responsibilities.
>
>Proposed Time Line
>--------------------
>
>Note proposed dates are motivated by the cutoff date for submission to
>OASIS board is beginning of calendar quarter (Oct 1, Jan 1)
>
>-TC approve V2.0 specs by end of Septmber f2f - September 26?
>
>-TC approve V3.0 specs at f2f - Mid December
>
>As you can see that if we are to adopt this proposal, then we need to
>make steady progress each week. This would necessitate meeting weekly
>rather than bi-weekly.
>
>Please share your thought, suggestions and concerns on this proposal.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Farrukh
>
>



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>