RE: [legalxml-intj-exmndr] Comments on John's Section VI Draft

Everyone,

 

Here are my comments on John's section:

 

1. I agree with Scott's comment that this document should 
not cover the GJXDM itself.  

2. 
ATD5: User-defined types are not limited to xsd: and j-xsd: 
types.

3. 
CDL8: Use 
URIs rather than URLs.  URIs may be 
either URLs or URNs.

4. CTN6: A xsd:complexType may be used by more than one element.  
e.g., The PersonType may be used by many elements other than 
Person.

5. 
A.6 Documentation Rules: These documentation 
rules are required by UBL but I have never seen GJXDM schemas documented 
this way.  I would like to see GJXDM 
examples of this before we include it.  
Even then, I suggest this documentation should probably be optional 
rather than mandatory.

Jim 
Cabral 

James E. Cabral Jr. 

MTG Management Consultants, 
L.L.C. 
1111 Third 
Avenue, Suite 2700 
Seattle, WA 98101-3201 
(206) 442-5010 
www.mtgmc.com 

The 
information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is 
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you 
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from 
any 
computer.

From: Scott Came 
[mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 
2005 9:20 PM
To: 

Subject: 
[legalxml-intj-exmndr] Comments on John's Section VI Draft

John and fellow subcommittee members:

I just did a quick 
read-through of John's first draft. My comments are:

1. This is 
definitely the biggest section and probably the one that will emerge with the 
most normative rules. So thanks for getting a good start on it, John.

2. 
I think in general patterning GJXDM after UBL is a good idea. I wonder if that's 
more of a long-term goal, though, than a short-term reality. For instance, I'm 
concerned that the UBL-ish terminology might be an obstacle for many of our 
intended users (e.g., practitioners and industry folks involved in integrated 
justice) who are just picking up GJXDM and don't want to have to learn UBL 
concepts as well.

In other words, I think it's fine for this document to 
try to move the GJXDM community (whatever that is) towards UBL, but I think it 
should perhaps do it a bit more subtly.

3. Many of the rules are written 
to apply to GJXDM itself. I didn't understand that to be within our scope... 
I've understood our scope (in Section VI at least) to be more narrowly focused 
on standards for schemas built from the GJXDM. That is, what naming and design 
rules should apply to my: (a) subset schema, (b) constraint schema, (c) 
extension schema, and (d) document schema. Also, how should these schemas be 
packaged together.

I think quite a few of the rules in the current 
document definitely apply (though, again, I think we might want to remove the 
reliance on UBL terminology)...I would only suggest that we not write them so 
that they apply to GJXDM itself.

A lot of the rules that may be missing 
can be gleaned from the GTRI training materials, the subset and constraint rules 
(scattered somewhat around the GTRI 
website).

Thoughts???

--Scott

Scott Came
President and 
Principal Consultant
Justice Integration Solutions, Inc.
Olympia, 
Washington
360-402-6525

http://www.justiceintegration.com