RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Review of comments on domain models, GJXDM mapping, and schemas

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] Review of comments on domain models, GJXDM mapping, and schemas




From: 
To: 
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:09:53 -0700 









I am posting multiple responses to the committee 
report, so that distinct discussion threads can exist.
This post represents some general 
comments.
 
 
>>  These are comments 
which the Review Committee does not believe should be accepted into ECF 
3.0

  
  I don't understand what that 
  means.
 
 
>> 
We are not aware of CMISs that calculate fees for multiple 
simultaneous filings in the same case 


  There isn't any debate here I just wanted to add these 
  comments:
   
  I 
  don't know if that observation is cause for us to take any action in our 
  spec.  
  There are few courts that currently support 
  any of the interactions we have proposed, 
  right?
   
  We 
  can only ask ourselves, does the interaction make good sense in our proposed 
  framework and processes and, is the interaction reasonably 
  feasible?
   
  In 
  this case, if it is conceivable that a court has the 
  software engine to calculate fees for a singular filing, then, it is also 
  conceivable that the same engine could be leveraged to 
  calculate fees for a group of filings.   There really isn't an 
  =y need for us to fuss about it.  As always, there could be possible issues 
  regarding timeouts and such with very large groups (or even a very large 
  filing, with thousands of participants).  But, that's just a given 
  issue for any of our interactions, eh?  
   
>> The person and organizational relationships are a central feature 
of the GJXDM model.  We are not at 
liberty to disregard them 


  I agree 
  with that sentiment - but I might change my mind when the rubber meets the 
  road. 
   
  With my 
  comments, I was trying to place on the table my view that, if we discover 
  that the GJXDM is significantly inadequate or awkward in this 
  particular area ( or any area ), then we should just create LegalXML-specific 
  extensions.  
   
  SquarePeg/Round-hole:
   
  At some 
  point, when we find ourselves making exceptional efforts to fit a 
  square peg in a round-hole, then it is a disservice to both the LegalXMl 
  community and GJXDM.   
   
  (1) We make 
  it unnecessarily cumbersome for the legalXML folks that need to express their 
  square-pegs.
  (2) The GJXDM 
  folks continue to believe that they do not need to 
  create the square-hole.
   
  The GJXDM 
  extension process allows us to say " This part stinks.  We had 
  to create our own thing. "  And, we formally draw attention to the 
  matter.
   
  Now, I 
  suppose all of that should go without saying -  I might've 
  jumped the gun a bit.  I really don't know that the GJXDM model is all 
  that bad.  I probably should have waited to see what the XML 
  samples look like.
   
  So, let's assume there's no issue here.... yet.
 
- Shane 
Durham
LexisNexis
 
 



From: John M. Greacen [mailto:]
Sent: 
Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:34 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing 
Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Review of 
comments on domain models, GJXDM mapping, and schemas




The review committee, consisting of 
, ,  and me, have reviewed the 
comments submitted by Don Bergeron, Shane Durham and Dallas Powell.  The committee report is attached.  

The committee disagreed with twelve 
of Shane’s comments.  Those twelve 
issues are listed at the beginning of the report and will be placed on the 
agenda for the ECFTC conference call scheduled for next Tuesday, October 
11th at 1:00 pm Eastern.  


Please review the committee report 
and Shane’s comments (the committee report merely summarizes his comments; you 
need to read his comments to fully understand and appreciate them) prior to the 
meeting so that we can reach closure on these issues next 
Tuesday.

Next Tuesday’s agenda will include 
additional items if they are ready for review by that time.  It will be an important TC 
meeting.

John 
M. Greacen
Greacen 
Associates, LLC
HCR 


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]