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

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 - POLICY




From: 
To: 
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:58:56 -0700 









On the subject of 
Policy:

  My biggest disagreement 
  with the current proposal, is the concept of a 
  PolicyMDE.
  I feel that it just 
  doesn't fit well into our MDE concept (it least, not my view of the 
  MDE concept).
   
  Why? Unlike our other 
  MDEs, PolicyMDE would not strongly represent a real world 
  process.
  There are no foreseeable 
  transactional interactions for PolicyMDE, there are no clearly identifiable 
  users, we have no storyboards... etc etc. 
   
  You might not agree with 
  that view.. but, that's ok.  I am only explaining my thoughts.  
  
  Read on.
   
  I think that others' 
  biggest disagreement with my proposal (one policy per MDE) , is that, as a 
  practical matter, they do not foresee any MDE-specific policy for 
  CourtRecord vs FilingReview vs Service, etc.    They do not 
  want to define a placeholder for those policies which have not yet been 
  identified (or might not ever be identified).  That's a 
  very fair criticism.
   
  So, 
  here's a 
  compromise:
  
    
    Let's say that, for ECF 3.0, we define 
    just one source of policy. 
    
    Let's say that the source of policy is the 
    FilingReviewMDE.
    
    Let's define that 
    source as FilingReview.GetPolicy().
    
    Let's nix PolicyMDE 
    
   
  I think that approach 
  resolves my biggest issue.
  
  And, since it includes a 
  single source of policy, it resolves others' multi-policy issue as 
  well.
   
  Since 
  the FilingReviewMDE/application is the one component that is most 
  likely to be present in every electronic filing system, it will be reliably 
  available to host the Policy set.  And, to be  honest, almost all of 
  the polices we have ever discussed are, in fact, strongly related to the 
  FilingReview process anyway.
   
  Is this approach 
  acceptable for ECF 3.0?
- 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]