Re: [regrep] Action item

[Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Kathryn,

That's wonderful.  Back in July or August I actually forwarded Kathleen
Farrukh's v3 presentation (the one we ran through in 2 calls around that
time), and ran through all of the new v3 features in a phone
conversation with her.  I thought it may help for you to know this, so
you can approach your conversation from that perspective.

Thanks,
Joe

"Breininger, Kathryn R" wrote:
> 
> I had an action item out of the Open Forum to talk with Kathleen Gundry about a list of requirements for the EPA registry, and to see if there are requirements that may be met with version 3.0, or that we may want to consider with version 4.0.  Attached are the documents, plus some explanation from Kathleen.  I would like to discuss these at our next telecon.  If we have questions, I can compile them and send to Kathleen.
> 
> ........snip from Kathleen........
> 
> Since Larry has authorized its release, I am attaching a requirements
> document that we prepared for the EPA-State Environmental Exchange
> Network (Word file titled Final SWRequirements). The requirements are
> described in some depth.  We prepared this document in support of the
> Technical Resources Group that advises the Exchange Network on XML
> technology implementations.  The group did not identify their priority
> requirements, so they are not reflected in the document, and I can't
> speak for the group.
> 
> I can offer you two other sources that might help winnow the large list
> of requirements.  (1) Subsequent to the requirements analysis, we
> prepared an analysis of available options.  We summarized the list of
> requirements in evaluating the available XML registry tools.  I have
> attached the summarized list of requirements as a Word document, called
> XML registry evaluation criteria.  (2) After the completion of the draft
> options analysis, the work group decided to adopt an interim solution,
> as they felt that the market was not ripe for making a commitment to a
> final software solution for XML management.  In evaluating an interim
> solution, they reduced the requirements to a very bare bones list:  Post
> Schema, Query Schema, Retrieve Schema, and provide some form of schema
> versioning. An API was seen as desirable, but not really required.  Cost
> was a factor in selecting the interim solution.  However, this would not
> constitute the requirements priorities for a longer term registry
> solution.
>  <<XML Registry Evaluation Criteria.doc>>  <<FinalSWReq--Wordversion.doc>>
> .......snip.............
> 
> Kathryn
> 
> Kathryn Breininger
> CENTRAL Project Manager
> Emerging Technologies
> Boeing Library Services
> 
> 425-965-0182 phone
> 425-237-3491 fax
> kathryn.r.breininger@boeing.com
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                                                   Name: XML Registry Evaluation Criteria.doc
>                                                   Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
>    XML Registry Evaluation Criteria.doc       Encoding: BASE64
>                                            Description: XML Registry Evaluation Criteria.doc
>                                        Download Status: Not downloaded with message
> 
>                                          Name: FinalSWReq--Wordversion.doc
>                                          Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
>    FinalSWReq--Wordversion.doc       Encoding: BASE64
>                                   Description: FinalSWReq--Wordversion.doc
>                               Download Status: Not downloaded with message

Attachment: Chiusano_Joseph.vcf
Description: Card for Joseph Chiusano