legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[System]

 MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
















legalxml-courtfiling message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]








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




From: "Poindexter, Gary W" <gpoindexter@kpmg.com>
To: Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com>,legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:01:53 -0400






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



Also 
for what it's worth:
 
1) If 
you want to "dumb down" the rendition (display) of the DTD, I'm betting there is 
someone on the list that could write an XSLT transformation that could provide a 
rendition of the DTD that only had required elements and attributes. This would 
eliminate the need for a separate DTD for reference purposes. 

2) I 
disagree when people undervalue the human readability aspects of XML. I believe 
this to be a strength and a major reason for acceptance of XML as a standard for 
developing standards. It's true that the machines don't care, but I care when I 
have to design, document, test, debug and gain approval from non-technical or 
non-XML literate associates and customers.
3) "X" 
is for extensible. I do not believe that a "standard" such as the Court Filing 
DTD is or must be a total solution for every implementation (ideal, but not practical).
4) 
Required elements and attributes must be carefully evaluated because they must 
be understood by all implementations.
5) If 
an implementation extends the standard, the extensions should be easily 
identifiable by other implementations and well documented within the DTD or Schema.
6) I 
agree with Todd. The problems that you list, imho, would be easily solved 
with a Schema.
 
gary

-----Original 
Message-----
From: Dallas Powell 
[mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 6:02 
PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: 
Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes



  
for what its worth
  
 
  
Having participated in the GCAC 
  interoperability  test at the very end (as both an EFM and EFSP), there 
  were a few things that we struggled with.  Because there was more than 
  one place to introduce actors, there was uncertainty among the vendors about 
  where to put the information.  Also from our memory there   seemed to be some elements that did not directly map to fields we 
  needed to loaded and updated the SUSTAIN CMS so we made some 
  interpretations specific to a court.
  
 
  
One of our specific disappointments about the DTD 
  is that you don't know what type of filing you are receiving until you get to 
  the lead document.  
  
 
  
In speaking with Todd at the CA AOC CEFTS meeting 
  held in June 2002, my interpretation of a discussion that I had with him 
  was that there are some areas of the DTD that can work for all courts, and 
  there are areas where courts need specific information.  To encompass 
  every need for all courts may not be feasible within a DTD, where as schema 
  offers more options.  Perhaps that may give more insight to what a DTD 
  Lite might mean.
  
 
  
Also, in the interoperability test, since we were 
  supporting Digital Signatures and no one else could support it, we had 
  to ignore that portion of the DTD and not include those components in our 
  transmissions.  We did not specifically look at all the elements that 
  were or were not used.  That may be another motive for a DTD 
  Lite?
  
 
  
Dallas