Summary of March 2 conference call

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















legalxml-courtfiling message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Summary of March 2 conference call




From: "John Greacen" <>
To: "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:58:29 -0700














This is my formulation of the resolution to the terminology
issues discussed on today’s conference call.  Please let me know if
you wish a change to my wording to be more technically precise in recording the
resolution.

 

I thank all who participated and contributed to the
discussion.  It was worthwhile and increased everyone’s
understanding.

 

Inclusion of terms describing the aggregation of interfaces
in the use cases.  All are in agreement with
James Cusick that the technically correct process for developing use cases does
not include this sort of aggregation, and that the development of a reference
architecture should follow the completion of the use cases.  However, James
became convinced during the discussion that we are, in effect, combining the
two processes in our development of the requirements documentation –
partly because of the real world experience that convinces all of us who have
worked in the domain of the need for these aggregations and the pressure of
time which does not allow us to conduct the analysis in two stages.  Shane
and Eric agreed to include high level use cases, with appropriate graphics,
showing the relationships among the detailed use cases and the aggregation terms
used in them.  All are in agreement that the aggregations will not be require
any implementer to build software or assemble components in any pre-determined
way.

 

Level of granularity of aggregations.  The
consensus is to continue to refer to three basic aggregations, with the
understanding that Eric and Shane may find it necessary to add to one of them,
or to add a fourth or even fifth aggregation, to address the needs for “secondary”
service and court filing policy.

 

Descriptive term for such aggregations.  We
will use the term Major Design Elements (or MDEs) rather than Components.

 

Terms for basic MDEs.  We will use
Filing Assembly MDE (or, perhaps, Filing and Service Assembly MDE), Filing
Review MDE, and Court Record MDE, or some variation of those basic terms that
Eric and Shane may suggest when they post the revised use cases. 

 

The issues have been resolved and there is no need for a
KAVI vote to determine the TC’s will on the issue or to confirm these
decisions.

 

John M. Greacen

Greacen Associates, LLC

HCR 78, Box 23

Regina, New Mexico 87046

505-289-2164

505-289-2163 (fax)

505-780-1450 (cell)

 











Follow-Ups:

[legalxml-courtfiling] Thought on CMS interface
From: "Dallas Powell" <>








[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]