legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[John Messing]

At one point in time, in 2001 I believe, we developed an operating principle for situations like this that paraphrased said a proponent of change bears the justification for making the change in order to balance a need for improving a standard against the risk of undermining prior work of the group. So, it seems that the group needs to affirmatively adopt the change in order for it to be effected, if this principle is still in effect. An object model is a cleaner and a more workable way in my opinion to express the relations between the subjects of court filing actions and their relationships to various other subjects and issues involved in a case. On the other hand, the way it was set up in Court Filing 1.0 is probably a sufficiently workable way of establishing and managing the relationships to make this improvement irrelevant. The question ultimately is the benefit of being consistent with the work of the justice groups involved the data dictionary project. One issue that comes to my mind is the question whether this change will be a final one, at least for a determinable time period, or the TC is looking at becoming reactive to the work of other groups, which I have a hunch could be a frustrating and ultimately unrewarding experience.