legalxml-courtfiling — archive

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes

From: Donald Bergeron
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:59:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes

From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG)" <[email protected]>
To: 'John Messing' <[email protected]>,[email protected]
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:56:56 -0400

Thank you John for your posting. I think that it will go far in increasing
understanding.

On the specific issue of subsetting the DTD, I have a concern. The overall
LegalXML model as expressed by Todd Vincent and reiterated many times is
that this dtd is over-inclusive but optional to cover as many conditions as
practical and to not place unnecessary constrains on any jurisdiction using
this dtd.

If there is a way of always getting a proper subset of a dtd, and validating
that condition well we may use it. Some of the approaches that you mention
can provide part of this service. However, the part that it is always a
proper subset is at risk as humans modify the parameter entities on which
most of these are based. Only one method, the Architectural Forms approach
has the concepts needed. This approach is not present in most commercial
software nor is it likely to as it has regretfully fallen out of favor. This
may be remedeiated W3C Schema World, although I am not sure of this. This
constraint should be looked upon as a requirement for CF 2.0. During the
implementation, if the requirement can not be met we can address it as a
change control to the requirements.

Beyond this, the constraints of the set has always been a goal and
requirement of the court policy standards. This is only part of the policy
requirements, but it is a part. One should think setting constraints that
are jurisdiction specific in a way that is localized in one place. This
allows the person developing the constraints to look at the full constraint
set so that it can be balanced and tuned. When you spread the validation to
two functions that are invisible to one another you increase the very human
risk of getting it wrong. 

This should be further studied during the research needed to implement the
requirements of court policy 1.0.


Regards,

Don Bergeron - Chair - Court Policy Sub-committee