Re: [regrep] Rename RS to RP?

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

Matt,

+1

RS and RP together is better.

I'm not sure Farrukhs assertion that the average person understands the 
term 'protocol' more than 'services' - for management the reverse is 
probably true!?!

DW

- Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> Our current RS actually is a set of services that implement a 
> protocol.   Switching to "protocol", therefore, just gives "protocol" 
> its turn to  shine :-)
>
> My suggestion would be:  "ebXML Registry Services & Protocol  
> Specification".
>
> -matt
>
> On Oct 21, 2004, at 9:32 AM, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>>
>> I am wondering if for version 3.0 we should change the name of 
>> "ebXML  Registry Services Specification" to "ebXML Registry Protocol  
>> Specification".
>>
>> The term "protocol" is more widely uses/understood than the term  
>> "services".
>>
>> The only down side I see with a name change is any potential 
>> confusion  it may cause. But then on the other hand it may clarify 
>> rather than  confuse the purpose of the spec.
>>
>> What do people think?
>>
>> --  Regards,
>> Farrukh
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
>> roster  of the OASIS TC), go to  
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/ 
>> leave_workgroup.php.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
>
>