RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] 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: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Summary of March 2 conference call




From: "Cusick, James" <>
To: "John Greacen" <>,"Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:48:57 -0500













John,
 
Looks like an accurate 
summation.
 
Regards,
james



From: John Greacen 
[mailto:]
Sent: Wed 3/2/2005 7:58 PM
To: 
Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: 
[legalxml-courtfiling] Summary of March 2 conference call




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)
 
















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

--

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