RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] MDE interface vs. implementation terminology

["Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>]

I agree with Shane with one adjustment. MDE(s) Supporting Application. This leads to LegalXML Supporting Application. The applications support LegalXML MDEs. An application may support 1 or more MDE within it.

 

 

Regards,

Don

Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781

---

From: Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:27 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] MDE interface vs. implementation terminology

 

 

Scott,

 

 

Your understanding of an MDE as 'interface' is consistent with mine, and is consistent with the original proposed concept.

 

As for a term that would represent a specific, physical implementation of an MDE...

"MDE Implementation" or just "Implementation".. would be fine, though, I like this one better: 'Application'. 

 

'Application' is short for 'LegalXML Application', and it refers to a physical implementation of one or more MDEs, in whole or in part.

 

For example: A 'FilingReviewApplication' is an implementation of the FilingReviewMDE.

 

An example of how the new term(s) used in conversation:

The FilingAssemblyApplication invokes the 'ReviewFiling' function of the FilingReviewMDE.

 

Or...  we could also say:

 

The FilingAssemblyApplication sends a ReviewFiling message to the the FilingReviewApplication.

- Shane

 

 

 

 

---

From: Scott Came [mailto:scott@justiceintegration.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 2:17 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] MDE interface vs. implementation terminology

At the face-to-face on Saturday, Shane and I took away an action item to "tighten up" our terminology around the term Major Design Element (MDE).  There has been some confusion as to whether this represents a set of features that an implementer must provide, or whether it's the implementation itself.

When I've used this term (which, truth be told, Shane introduced to the TC last fall), I've always intended it to be an interface definition or specification, not an implementation.  It is possible for an implementer to provide implementations of several MDEs in one physical endpoint or service.  For instance, someone could build a court case management system that had the Filing Review and Court Record MDEs in one physical application.

This issue arose when we were discussing splitting the Query MDE into more fine-grained pieces (which I agree we should do.)

The question then becomes, what do we call an implementation of one or more MDEs?

How about MDE interface and MDE implementation?  Shane?

Also, Shane, if I've missed some key aspect of the issue in my description above, please elaborate.

Note that the ECF 3.0 specification will have very little if anything to say about MDE implementations.  We're all about the interfaces.  No?

Thanks.

--Scott

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php