Re: [regrep-semantic] Groups - CAMcomponents metadata 015.xsd uploaded

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

David RR Webber wrote:

>Farrukh,
>
>Sorry - I should have renamed it - I just had it in my "CAM dev" folder -
>that's
>why it ended up with that name.
>  
>
David,

It is not the name that is at issue here. The issue is that we are in 
our formulative stages as an SC and we need to be focused.
In my humble opinion it is out-of-context, out-of-sequence to be 
discussing CAM and its connections with SCM. Lets us first focus on
use cases. Then based on use cases determine what is in scope and what 
is out of scope and what are the requirements we as an SC need to meet.
Then we can focus on specific goals, deliverables and milestones.

I very much want to encourage brainstorming. That means it is OK for a 
member to put an idea on the table and for team members to decide 
whether it is worth pursuing or not.

Based on that I am expressing my opinion that it is too early for CAM to 
be discussed on this SC.

>I'll re-cast it - its supposed to be "eBusiness Transaction Semantic
>Content".
>
>Of course CAM can consume that - but so can a bunch of other stuff too.
>The idea is to make a generalized mechanism.   I've also been hard at
>work this week looking at exactly what schema can and cannot do
>in terms of semantics.  Clearly we want to make sure our semantic
>content augments what's out there already.
>  
>
I know that you have put a commendable effort into getting CAM where it is.
I think it would be appropriate to discuss CAM and its connections with SCM
at a future time when both CAM and SCM SC would be farther along.

>I need to put together the text draft anyway - stating purpose et al.
>
>I just wanted to at least make a start sharing some ideas around what
>a XML rendering of ebusiness semantics could look like - to give
>people something to think about in their own context..
>  
>
I respect your intentions but I humbly submit that it would do more 
damage than good to be discussing CAM
in this forum right now because it will create more noise than signal. 
All I ask is to wait a while till we have had
our kickoff meeting and have discussed some use cases and scope. Thanks 
for your understanding.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh