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

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Farrukh,

OK - but you know I'm going to offer up a ton of
CAM-centric use cases ; -)

DW.

p.s. Is CAM like SARS?  There is no known cure?!?
      It's extremely contagious, OK - I'll stop there!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
To: "David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: <regrep-semantic@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep-semantic] Groups - CAMcomponents metadata 015.xsd
uploaded


> 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
>
>
>