legalxml-courtfiling — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
[legalxml-courtfiling] A Vote Not to Approve the Policy RequirementsDocument
MHonArc v2.5.2 -->legalxml-courtfiling message
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] A Vote Not to Approve the Policy RequirementsDocument
- From: "Krause, Catherine" <[email protected]>
- To: "'[email protected]'"<[email protected]>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:03:22 -0800
Title: Message
|
I
concur with Roger and also vote not to approve the Court Policy requirements
document.
Thank
you to Don for working on this, and for putting up with those of us (myself
included) who have let deadlines pass without taking the time to read the
various versions of this document, and/or for not providing feedback even if we
did read them.
There
are two primary reasons that I propose that we take an approach such as what
Roger has proposed with this document, and for all of our future TC work
products that are part of the 2.0 family, which we have long said will be a more
"ideal" architecture:
1)
Even though I was present at the Salt Lake City TC meeting where this document
is reviewed, I find that I cannot remember what the majority of the requirements
mean. This is the primary reason I stopped trying to review it and provide
feedback some time ago. I suspect that others may have the same issue,
particularly those of us that were not involved in Legal XML in the
beginning. A detailed text description of each requirement, perhaps
including how each requirement would be used, should be added to ensure that we
all have a shared understanding of the requirements and can provide feedback as
to any missing requirements or modifications that might be needed. I think
this is the minimum that is needed before this document should be considered by
the TC.
2) I
support Roger's proposal that this product be tabled for consideration with the
1.1 series of standards, and instead be included in the 2.0 standards. If
this standard is not needed as part of the 1.1 series of standards, there is no
reason to "grandfather" this document. It should follow the
recently-established process, which should start with an overall agreement on
the architecture for 2.0 before any of the requirements for the individual
sub-parts of the architecture (Court Filing, Court Document/Forms, Court Policy,
etc.) are developed. This is of critical importance and it should be one
of the agenda items at the Las Vegas meeting.
In
summary, my proposal is similar to Roger's #1 below, including a call
to follow our recently adopted procedures for the TC.
Sincerely,
Catherine Krause
E-Filing Project Manager
King County Department of Judicial
Administration
(206)296-7860
|