[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] Kickoff!
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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]