[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] Thoughts??? on Ontolog Invited SpeakerPresentation - Leo Obrst
ewallace@cme.nist.gov wrote:You are right that requirements cannot be frozen so early.Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM wrote: Zachary Alexander wrote:-SC provide SCM Use Cases document by end of February for TC reviewShouldn't some additional recruitment occur prior to finalizing requirements? Were there folks from other groups within the OASIS/ebXML community who were interested the formation of this group? If so, perhaps they could be recruited or at least debriefed for their requirements. Perhaps the UBL semantics could be stored in this repository.? Maybe we would could iterate on requirements if necessary. As in an Iterative rather than waterfall process. There are some prior examples that I can dig up in the archives:-SC provide SCM Requirements document by end of April for TC review -SC provide outline of SCM technical proposal by end of June for TC reviewFor someone who is completely new to this group, can you provide some details about the form and kind of content found in a technical proposal like this? http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep-cooperating/200208/msg00000.html Above is the final proposal from the Cooperating Registries SC. The format is designed to make it easy to incoporate in the specs. We can improve on this format for our proposal. An outline would be essentially a table of contents for the detailed final proposal. Telecon is what I would suggest given travel budgets are tight.Deliverables and milestones would be a major topic of discussion for our kickoff meeting.Will this meeting be a telecon or face-to-face? Sorry to ask so many questions!I am glad you did. -- Regards, Farrukh |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]