MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
legalxml-sc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Juvenile Dependency TC in LegalXML?
From: "John M. Greacen" <>
To: <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:57:20 -0600
Title: RE: [legalxml-sc] Juvenile Dependency TC in LegalXML?
Jim –
I do believe that juvenile dependency
falls within the scope of the LegalXML Member Section.
I am impressed with the points that Roger
raises. We have all seen in recent
weeks that the existence of the GJXDM does not ensure
consistent semantics among specifications and schemas purporting to use it as
it was intended.
And there is no entity that monitors
consistency of GIEPDs for the GJXDM.
It is also true that court orders
are filings. And
we are about to reactivate the Court Document subcommittee, with a focus on an
initial list of specific documents/exchanges to be fully marked up for
transmission via ECF 3.0. (On the other hand, we have only just begun
the discussion of overlap of this Court Document subcommittee work with the
work of the IJTC and with other efforts at the NCSC and IJIS.) These factors argue in favor of
including a juvenile dependency GIEPD within the ECFTC.
On the other hand, Roger’s analysis
would lead to a very expansive scope of work for the ECFTC.
There is a real issue of our
competency to handle that scope of work.
Our work is actually done by a very small
subgroup of the TC membership. We may not have the energy or competence
to take on the whole of juvenile dependency – let alone the whole of all
other topics that would come within our ambit by Roger’s analysis. On the other hand, if the creation of a
juvenile dependency effort within ECFTC attracted
sufficient interested and knowledgeable people, there would be no reason not to
do the work within the ECFTC. I personally believe that the decision to
create a new TC or to operate within the ECFTC (or the IJTC) requires the
right balance of the benefit of exclusive focus on a small area of effort with the
detriment of increased divergence among Member Section products. However, we must resolve the latter issue
independently of this particular decision. On balance, then, I come down on the side
of a new TC – one that could focus all of its energies
on the juvenile dependency task without requiring the ECFTC
to include the topic among the list of other topics to which it devotes its
energies. (On the other hand, one
could argue that the ECFTC will have free time after
September to devote to other matters.)
In a recent email, stated that the IJTC has
taken itself out of the business of developing specific GIEPDs
and is focusing instead on promulgating standards for the process for creating GIEPDs that will produce interoperable end
products. If that is true, then there would be no overlap with IJTC. If that
is not true – and my recent, very short discussion with about the Court Document subcommittee
leads to think that it is not true -- then there is an issue of overlap with
the IJTC as well as with ECF
3.0. The IJTC
overlap could be addressed by a division of work based
on subject matter – the approach that we are going to attempt to use to
clarify roles of IJTC and the ECFTC
Court Document subcommittee. My
sense is that the natural interests of the IJTC focus
on criminal justice system exchanges, which would minimize the overlap with
juvenile dependency.
I would be willing to be one of the three OASIS
members needed to initiate a new juvenile dependency TC
within the Member Section. However,
I do not have the energy to be actively involved in that TC’s
work once it is established. The
effectiveness of the TC would depend on our ability
to attract other courts people to the TC and to the
Member Section. That is eminently
doable, though, by using the network of program directors for the Court
Improvement Projects funded by HHS in every state for
the past ten years, focusing on abuse and neglect cases. It might even be possible to get HHS money to support an OASIS effort in some way.
However we come down as a group on the narrow issue of a new TC or use of an existing TC for
this juvenile dependency effort, we must address the issue of horizontal consistency
of LegalXML Member Section specifications. I am not comfortable relying on members
of the Member Section in general or even the members of other TCs to vet specifications that we develop in the future and
ensure their consistency with prior products. For instance, I do not think that
members of the ECFTC would take the time to go
through a Contracts TC specification to identify
inconsistencies with ECF 3.0. This issue of horizontal consistency has
been with us ever since the first meetings of Legal XML in 1988. The Legal XML solution was to create a
Horizontal Working Group responsible for consistency across all working groups.
Persons did volunteer to serve on
the working group, but it never functioned; Court Filing was the only working
group to develop a specification and there was nothing with
which it could be inconsistent.
I do not believe that it makes sense to create a new Horizontal TC within the Member Section. Nor do I feel that the Steering Committee
itself can take on that responsibility. Here is what I propose.
1.
TCs propounding new
specifications and schemas will be required to conduct their own comparison
with existing Member Section specifications and schemas and bring to the
attention of the TCs responsible for those existing
products any inconsistencies that they identify. We can use our usual processes to resolve
such conflicts, with the understanding that changes to a specification that is
already in use require a relatively high threshold of necessity; the other side
of that coin is that all standards require periodic updating and revision and
the revisions needed by these internal reconciliations can be accommodated by
that mechanism.
2.
The
Member Section Steering Committee will assign to its paid consultant the
responsibility for an independent detailed analysis of every newly recommended Member
Section specification for internal consistency with existing work. Our paid consultant will therefore become
responsible for the ultimate quality control function. In time, it will become clear to all TCs that they will need to involve the consultant in their
work at an early stage to ensure that inconsistencies do not develop. That will make that position one of great
power and influence. We can counterbalance
that power by designating the Steering Committee as the ultimate arbiter of
disputes between TCs or between the paid consultant
and a TC.
I apologize for making a constitutional
law case out of Jim’s relatively straightforward inquiry. I would appreciate comments; I will also
put this on the agenda for our next Steering Committee meeting. I believe that Jim is entitled to a
response from other Steering Committee members on his juvenile dependency inquiry
in the mean time.
From: Winters, Roger
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:12
PM
To: 'Cabral, James E. ';
' '
Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc]
Juvenile Dependency TC in LegalXML?
Dear Jim:
My
two-cents: I believe this is squarely within the scope of the Court Filing TC,
or at least a Court Documents Subcommittee within it. Court orders are ALWAYS
filed and therefore they are both court filings and court documents. I do not
know what documentation is used for the referrals in question. However, in ,
we have a distinction between the "legal file" kept in the Juvenile
Court Clerk's Office and the "social file," maintained by social
workers in our Department of Youth Services. Documents relating to referrals,
if they are formal Orders, would be filed. If they are not, they might or might
not be considered "attachments" or "exhibits" to be
included in the case file in that way.
It seems
to me important that we not proliferate TCs based on case types, but rather
help the people with focused interests find room and tools within LegalXML to
accomplish their purposes. While it may be appropriate to have specialized
subcommittees (usually with a sunset) for particular subject matter areas or
types of cases, we should work to have all of their artifacts and records being
developed in a harmonious way, building on standards.
Roger
Winters
-----Original
Message-----
From: Cabral, James E.
To:
Sent: 7/21/05 3:03 PM
Subject: [legalxml-sc] Juvenile
Dependency TC in LegalXML?
LegalXML
Steering Committee members:
MTG is
interested in participating in a technical committee within OASIS
to focus on the interface between
courts and child welfare agencies.
has implemented an XML-based interface between their
courts and
child welfare agencies that builds
upon previous work by LegalXML.
However, they do not have a forum
for presenting that work for
consideration as a standard.
We have approached them about possibly
contributing the work through
OASIS. Petitions to the courts would
presumably be covered within the
scope of Court Filing 3.0. However,
court orders and referrals related
to juvenile dependency cases are not
clearly covered by any existing
TC.
We have
just begun consideration of this TC and have therefore not yet
drafted a proposed charter.
However, before we do, I would value some
feedback from the Steering
Committee. Specifically, my questions for
the Steering Committee are:
1. Do you
agree that this falls within the scope of the LegalXML Member
Section?
2. Does this fall within the scope
of any existing LegalXML TCs?
3. How could we define the scope to
minimize the overlap of a new TC
with existing LegalXML TCs?
4. Do you know of any OASIS members
that would probably be interested in
sponsoring a TC in this area?
Thanks,
James E.
Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
(206) 442-5010
<file://www.mtgmc.com>
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.
References:
RE: [legalxml-sc] Juvenile Dependency TC in LegalXML?
From: "Winters, Roger" <>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
