RE: This week

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by "Nieman, Scott"
> 
David, we need to work off the previous agenda I sent to the list.  I
believe it is premature to begin to define XML structures now.  We need to
model the workflow (the behaviour of the system) and then work through
sample interfaces.  I suggested in my prior email to sketch out flowcharts
of the process for each use case.  Brute forcing a bunch of XML structures
without knowing how they will be used leads to spagetti code, and poor
design.

Also, the part1 document needs to have a second draft completed.  It needs
to be approved  at the next meeting.

Scott<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Scott - we're not losing sight of that and today we spent entirely on
completing
Part 1 review and better understanding exactly what you noted on the design
interaction aspects.

Tomorrow however we need to spend at least some focus on the POC side
of the house.

We have enough I believe to create some very limited sub-sets of
functionality
to ensure a good POC - the old 80:20 rule applies here.  We must beware as
you note however of the tail wagging the dog.  This was my big concern with
POC
voiced in Brussels.  

At the same time we cannot ignore the need to engage in what is essentially
a harmonization effort with TR&P and Core/BP thru this means, so that 
RegRep needs are not marginalized within the 'big picture'. (i.e. we know
its in the archtitecture - but it 'seems' to work OK without it anyway, so
maybe
we did not need RegRep afterall....).   RegRep is a big value add for ebXML
and we have to ensure that this is not lost in the POC shuffle.

Thanks, DW.