RE: agenda for Tokyo

["Munter, Joel D" <joel.d.munter@intel.com>]

Scott, 
Thanks for finally setting some details for the agenda.  I have been very
surprised that the detailed agenda had not been set until now.  As currently
planned, I will not be in physical attendance and was curious about
teleconference logistics.  Are there any bridge numbers setup?  If so,
please publish them.  
Joel

-----Original Message-----
From: Nieman, Scott [mailto:Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 4:06 PM
To: 'Yutaka Yoshida '; 'ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org '
Subject: RE: agenda for tokyo


This is what I am suggesting:
ebXML Reg-Rep Agenda

Monday:
Overview of Work Product Status:
1) Part1
2) Registry Services
3) Repository Information Model

Registry and Repository Proof of Concept Feedback

Discussion of Proposed Work Items
1) Alignment of Part1 to Registry Services or Vice Versa;model integration
2) Update of Work Plan
3) Discussion of Information Model; NIST contribution
4) Review of Technical Architecture document
5) Impact of other project teams work items, TRP, TP, TA, CC
6) New Contributions: Pub/Sub

Define the Breakout groups (if needed)

Tuesday-Thursday
Breakout Groups for work Items
Presentation Preparation


Note:  I am not suggesting that we reconsider the whole architecture again,
HOWEVER, based on what has happened to the TA spec, QRT is going to RIP on
our documents as they DO NOT relate back to the original requirements.  NOR
is there consistency between documents.  

As far as missing functionality, so far I have not seen anything new, even
pub/sub as our discussion with TA is how they included pub/sub in their
document.

UDDI may have to wait...

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Yutaka Yoshida
To: ebxml-regrep@lists.ebxml.org
Sent: 10/30/00 12:00 PM
Subject: agenda for tokyo

All,

Tokyo meeting is coming and I thought it might be a good idea
to start a pre-discussion about the agenda, so I'd like to propose:

1) First, we should lay down the rule about the spec, which we
   must follow. Are we going to re-consider the whole architecture
   again or are we going to do a 'bug fix' if the things proven not
   to be ok in POC? I strongly disagree restarting the whole
   architecture discussion again because we don't have that kind of
   luxury.

2) In regards to the current spec, there are following possible
   discussions:
   
   a) bug fix - we need to fix things according to POC experience.
   
   b) missing functionalities - we need to make a phase delivery matrix
      for Vancouver and Vienna. Functionalities are:
      
      ad hoc query
      authentication
      distributed registry
      publish-subscribe
      versioning
      uddi support
      
      I listed them in alphabetical order, and Farrukh's and my
      priorities are:
      
      		Yutaka			Farrukh
      	ad hoc query			ad hoc query
      	versioning			pub-sub
      	authentication			distributed-reg
      	distributed-reg			versioning
      	uddi				authentication
      					uddi

      I'm not sure about the priority of pub-sub. My point in that
      prioritization is making a spec which is good enough to be
      reviewed by QR.

So, how does everyone feel about that?

yutaka yoshida