RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes Octo ber23d

["Lewis, Diane" <Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov>]

Roger,
a possible model to discuss is based on Justice Standards Registry...
 you have a submitted concept or implemented standard ... (1.1.x) the submission is examined/compared to the existing recommended/completed standard as approved by the TC; then authorization is obtained from the TC to publish implementation/submitted concept as part of "next version" construction...  the implemented/concept standard would be reaffirmed or withdrawn over the lifecycle of the newly recommended TC standard .... that way the TC work benefits from implementations without getting bogged down in continuous revisions/version control of the actual standard/specification that is approved/recommended.  i view it as a continuous cycle ... like mother nature... diane

-----Original Message-----
From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 12:59 PM
To: Krause, Catherine; Electronic Court Filing TC
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes
Octo ber 23d


<Catherine Krause>Diane suggested that we conclude this discussion during
the November 5th conference call and come to a consensus, which would then
be posted to the list per standard procedure.  I support Diane's suggestion.
</Catherine Krause>

 I concur with this being a topic for the November 5 conference call
meeting. 

Is anyone able to find out whether other OASIS technical committees outside
of the Legal XML family have faced a similar issue - having one
specification and wanting to incorporate an additional functionality into it
without damaging backward compatibility vs. making a new specification the
"master" and incorporating the elements of the existing one into it? A
precedent (success or failure) would be helpful to our deciding how to
proceed.

Roger Winters