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

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 - QUERIES




From: 
To: 
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:35:27 -0700 









 

>> A separate MDE should be defined for each pair of a query and its 
response so that implementers have the option of assigning queries to 
different MDEs.

  I disagree with that framing of the 
  issue.
  I have attached a document to illustrate the proposed 
  models and why I continue to prefer the model I have put 
  forth.
   
>> 
Queries need to be defined for the service function, 
such as GetServiceDeliveryHistory/Status Queries. 


  There is no issue here:  My mention of those 
  potential queries was intended to be hypothetical.  I did 
  not intend to propose them for our current release. (Heck, I don't even know 
  that I would support them in a future spec either.  Like I said.. they 
  were hypothetical examples.)
   

>> We have defined a GetServiceInformation Query to obtain names and 
addresses of persons entitled to service in a case.  

  I thought we had decided against the 
  ServiceMDE's GetServiceInformation() query?
  
   I am pretty sure we decided that the 
  CourtRecord was to act as 'the repository of service recipient 
  addresses'.  I thought we had decided that the CourtRecord's 'GetCase() 
  function, when asked to include case participants, would also include the 
  service properties (ie MDE addresses) of those 
  participants?
   
  Perhaps 
  this query only lingers until the GetCase() query has ben further 
  developed?
 
- 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)


SdurhamCommentsRegardingQueryMDE.doc












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

--

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