RE: [regrep] FW: IECM Standards Proposal

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

[Comment at end]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 10:11 AM
> To: regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [regrep] FW: IECM Standards Proposal
> 
> 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 believe that *a* core value of ebXML Registry is as as a Content and
Metadata Management. I don't concur that it is *the* core value. In
fact, I would also like to see the registry portrayed in the future as
an application integration registry in which core data elements that are
utilized by multiple applications within an enterprise are stored in the
registry, along with information such as the business processes that
each application participates in, and more.

Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
> 
>