RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Attached proposed person object

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

Gary: 

If I am the JohnM referred to in your posting, I think you ascribe to me greater powers of observation and comprehension than I frankly think I can claim or deserve.

My own preference is to leave the family of 1.1 standards that are frozen, in progress, or near completion alone for the moment and to bring that work to completion. Even if there is only one major implementation that can presently take advantage of them, we owe it as a practical as well as a moral imperative to the developers and courts that have listened to us in the past to give them what they need to work with now and in the future, as a complete family of standards. Otherwise our credibility will suffer and no one may listen to us in the future and rightly so.

At the same time, we have begun to envision a new generation of xml or rdf standards for embodiment in the 2.0 family of standards. I think with regard to the 2.0 family of standards, what we have done in 1.1 is instructive but not binding upon us. With 2.0, it may be possible to treat the rapidly evolving justice grouping of dictionary definitions as extensions to ebxml or other mature technologies, and to incorporate their camel naming conventions, even if they change from week to week or month to month, until there is final agreement upon them. In this regard, I think that an object model for the subjects of court filings is superior because as objects they can logically have properties, which may make the relationships between them clearer and easier to express in mark-up language, depending of course on how this is accomplished in practice.

The timing may not be perfect because of the apparent need to respond to the justice dictionary groups quickly. I think we should tell them that we intend to study the proposals in the context of our next generation of standards, and to begin that work parallel with completing work on 1.1.

I guess this is technically an amendment to your proposal.

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Poindexter, Gary W" <gpoindexter@kpmg.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:13:54 -0400

>Based upon the original proposal and the thread as I interpret it, let me
>make some observations and hope that the more detailed of the group will
>expand upon these observations and my recommendation:
>
>The issue as originally stated is simply a reorganization of the "person
>object" as it stands in the OJP DD. I used version 1.1.0 with upper camel
>case on which to base my comments. I actually looked at the schema while
>writing this so that John M doesn't embarrass me again by pointing out my
>lack of detail.
>
>The only reference in the schema (that I can find) to actor is "...specify
>membership in a collection of Actors" in a comment. There are no references
>to role. I believe that John already pointed this out.
>
>The real issue is: Shame on us, why has this happened?
>
>In the "Principles for Development of XML Specifications for the Justice and
>Public Safety Community" there are two bullets that may apply:
>
>Bullet 3: "XML Specifications shall be over-inclusive by specifying those
>elements that may be required by fewer than all participants and making
>those elements optional."
>
>Bullet 7: "Certain complex elements are sufficiently independent and driven
>by group business rules such that they cannot be used by more [than] one
>organization. In such cases the shareable simple elements contained within
>the complex element are defined."
>
>If we/NTIA/whomever have interpreted the actor and role elements/hierarchies
>as belonging to bullet 7 then I propose that we/they have erred. 
>
>1) These elements and structures work well outside of courts, court filing
>and associated document types and functionality.
>2) Per bullet 3 they should have been included in the OJP DD anyway. The
>intent of bullet 3 was to avoid the very problem we are having. That is, the
>DD has been "extended" (bullet 4) by the court filing TC (formerly LegalXML
>workgroup) and therefore bullet 5 applies "Wherever possible previously
>developed solutions should be adopted or extended."
>
>I propose that the court filing TC propose to NTIA or the latest taskforce
>that elements/hierarchies in court filing 1.X, and other court related
>proposals if appropriate, be added to the DD as dictated by either bullet 3
>or bullet 7. DJ has done a pretty good job in the past with such
>classifications.
>
>If the TC as a whole is not prepared to back the current, entire DTD as a
>proposed submission to NTIA, then I propose that role and actor are
>sufficiently mature and enduring to deserve proposal on their own merit. If
>there is disagreement on the content or definition of actor and/or role in a
>more global context, then the DD process (non-existent to date) must allow
>public comment from all sectors that presumably will or can lead to a more
>global definition. Then we can change because someone will provide
>justification for the change.
>
>We then ask GTRI to back up a step, look at the role/actor concept and
>reevaluate their proposal for "person type" in this context. Or maybe they
>try proposing a change to "Address" instead of "person type."
>
>And if anyone cares, GTRI should justify the change of "PersonalID,
>AssignedID" from PersonalIDNumber, PersonType being split into
>BioMetricIdentity and PersonalIdentity (PersonalIdentity is currently
>PersonDescription) and no reference to name type (current, alias).
>
>gary
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 8:13 AM
>To: Court Filing List
>Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Attached proposed person object
>
>
>It appears that I forgot to attach the GTRI proposal.  Here it is.
>
>--
>John M. Greacen
>Greacen Associates, LLC.
>18 Fairly Road
>Santa Fe, NM  87507
>505-471-0203
>
>
>
>*****************************************************************************
>The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
>It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
>is unauthorized. 
>
>If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
>or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
>and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
>contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
>the governing KPMG client engagement letter.         
>*****************************************************************************
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>