Re: [regrep] FW: IECM Standards Proposal

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Fuger, Sally wrote:

>+1 here, also. That's why I joined and remained active in the group!!
>
>Sally
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Duane Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
>Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 6:33 AM
>To: Farrukh Najmi
>Cc: Chiusano Joseph; regrep@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Mike Connor'
>Subject: Re: [regrep] FW: IECM Standards Proposal
>
>
>+1
>
>Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>  
>
>>ebXML Registry standard should be factored into any Content Management 
>>standards activity. I have always maintained that Content (and 
>>Metadata) Management is our core value. Can you explore what can be 
>>done to sync these activities with Owen and others? Thanks. 
>>    
>>
>
>Duane
>
>  
>
Thanks to all the valuable inputs (whether supportive or questioning) on 
my assertion that ebXML Registry core value is as a Content and Metadata 
Management standard. At present we do not have consensus on this 
assertion yet.

I think this is an important issue that we as a TC need to resolve.

In the past I have made distinctions between a CMS product and a CMS 
standard and suggested that a CMS standard does not have to support all 
the capabilities that are present in CMS products but instead only 
support those capabilities that are necessary for interoperability 
across different CM systems. Does this premise seem reasonable to TC 
members? If so, the next step would be to identify CMS capabilities that 
are necessary for interoperability across different CM systems and see 
how we fare on these capabilities.

Does above tactics seem reasonable for resolving this issue? If not are 
there other suggestions?

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh