View source for CAD Working Group Strategy

a.  Build examples of X3D CAD models to provide use cases and
use case and best practices.

Preserve product structure in CAD node name fields and metadata.

b.  Resist the urge to refactor CAD product nodes, unless a clear
improvement in CAD consistency is shown.  Preferred is good practices
rather than restrictions that are difficult to enforce.

c.  Goals
- Primary goal.  CAD definitions converted to X3D geometry, preferring
	parametric representations for brevity and precision.
- Secondary goal.  Option to save CAD product structure in the use of
	named X3D CAD product structure nodes, with addition of embedded
	typed metadata nodes.
- Third goal.  Define, implement, demonstrate and distribute the workflow
	for converting CAD models to X3D.

d. Next steps for activity.
- Compare vocabularies for ISO STEP, Macro Parametric Approach, B-REPS
	(general definitions) and B-REPS (proposed X3D nodes).
- For each table row, define corresponding mappings to existing parametric
	X3D nodes (e.g. NURBS, extrusion, primitives).
- Consider implementing these BREPS nodes as NURBS-based X3D prototypes
- These prototypes are an independent implementation that make it easy
	for either authors or browser to use such BREPS nodes
- Can also update the support for these nodes in Xj3D open source
- List all pros/cons of BREPS nodes as first-class X3D v3.4 nodes
- At this point it is much easier to decide whether to add BREPS to X3D

e.  Constructive Solid Geometry (CSG) is best considered part of model
definition, something that helps to produce BREPS and surfaces, and not
something that needs to be supported in browsers and content.  CSG is
computationally heavyweight, and does not belong in a lightweight
portrayal format like X3D.  If browsers are heavy, no one uses them.
"Lighter, stronger, simpler" is what Hyo hears from his customers.