CORRECTION: sorting out webcgm futures

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

[...with correct attachment this time...]

WebCGM TC --

In March, Dave put out a call for input (CFI, [2]) for a list of 15 
potential new features, going beyond WebCGM 2.0.   Hopefully Dave is 
getting some feedback from other sources, as I have seen nothing on the TC 
list or the MS list yet.

Meanwhile, 10 months ago six of the TC members actually generated (at 
Clearwater) a considerably more detailed look [1] at the possibilities, 
including whether each item should be considered as "quick 2.1", "3.0", or 
even CGM V5 (and/or Registration).

An interesting feature of [1] is that each item is assigned to a TC member 
for use-case generation.  I would suggest that these should be considered 
as action items/assignments, in satisfaction of Dave's last sentence of 
[2], with a relatively short due date.  (We could also re-assign some of 
them to TC-ers that weren't present or didn't get enough of the fun.)

I'm trying to think, how can we proceed in such a way as to justify the 
need for a F2F in as soon as 7 weeks?

First:  TC commit to the work -- at least a 2.1 with a half-dozen or so 
relatively quickly doable items.  Commit means:  TC members individually 
and collectively commit to do the necessary assignments (use cases, 
requirements, drafting, test generation), implementors will implement it 
(!), etc.

Second:  Draft and start getting consensus on Requirements and Use Cases 
document for whatever is committed.

Third:  Assemble and start getting consensus on Features List.

Fourth:  Start drafting the spec, raising and resolving the issues, etc.

[...]

Arguably, some of this is might be in the wrong order.  But ... it seems to 
me that we ought to be well into "Third" before the start of a F2F, so that 
the beginning of the F2F finalizes the scope, requirements, basic 
functional list, etc, and the rest of the F2F is details and drafting of a 
first rough working draft.

Is that doable?

Trying to understand [1] and [2] together, I have made a modified version 
of [2] (attached), where I attached original tentative choices from Clearwater.

Regards,
-Lofton.

[1] Clearwater:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/email/archives/200611/msg00004.html
[2] CFI:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/email/archives/200703/msg00008.html

WebCGM_future_thougts-r1.doc