legalxml-sc — archive
RE: [LegalXML-sc] Reminder - Quarterly status reports
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] Reminder - Quarterly status reports
- From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <[email protected]>
- To: "'John Greacen'" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
- Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:21:41 -0400
|
Legislation Technical Committee
The TC held a workshop collocated with National Conference of State Legislatures' NALIT and Legal Services groups as well as parties from other areas. Twelve people attended the meeting.
Discussion with Subject Matter Experts from State Legislatures Information Technology and Legal Services ensued. We talked through an initial collection of Legislative Information Document Artifacts, noting that although the artifacts were often the same, the names varied. We further talked through an initial model of legislative interactions, including state transitions within legislative process, provided by Propylon, a provider of solutions for Legislatures. They noted that some document types had been created under an NCSL effort led by Jeffrey Blanchard of Florida. We will be contacting him so such valuable work can be brought into this effort.
Everyone could see long-term benefits to having intra-state standards for the document artifacts at least for export or interchange. It was clear from the discussion, however, that there was no near-term realizable benefit that the states participating in the discussion would derive from participating in the standards effort. States in attendance have developed or are currently engaged in development of artifacts and systems, already incurring the cost of development. Therefore, they did not believe they could convince people responsible for Legislative budget that participation is a priority. This is a similar response to what Joe Carmel from the IT office of the US House of Representatives expressed at an earlier point in time.
They did see the value of actively reviewing Legislative Document interchange specifications, as they often provide such documents currently on an ad hoc basis in different formats. A standard format would save them time and effort.
Given the above, we have begun looking at focusing our efforts on support for Legislative-Regulatory Compliance. This will involve the need to support interoperative, exchange level Legislative and Regulatory Content as well as a standard placement for valued added annotations. It will also focus initially on the registration or a client's need for this data likely via either a subscription model or other appropriate form.
Given this, the committee is considering a change in charter or the closing of this TC and the creation of a new TC within LegalXML in this more focused space. This will likely be a major topic at our November 19th Face to Face meeting in Washington DC.
Planning for this workshop continues with Goal Statements and Roadmaps being drafted. Regards, Don Donald L. Bergeron
|