legalxml-intj-exmndr message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-intj-exmndr] Comments on John's Section VI Draft
- From: "Cabral, James E." <JCabral@mtgmc.com>
- To: <scott@justiceintegration.com>,<legalxml-intj-exmndr@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:28:46 -0800
Everyone,
Here are my comments on John's section:
1. I agree with Scott's comment that this document should
not cover the GJXDM itself.
2.
ATD5: User-defined types are not limited to xsd: and j-xsd:
types.
3.
CDL8: Use
URIs rather than URLs. URIs may be
either URLs or URNs.
4. CTN6: A xsd:complexType may be used by more than one element.
e.g., The PersonType may be used by many elements other than
Person.
5.
A.6 Documentation Rules: These documentation
rules are required by UBL but I have never seen GJXDM schemas documented
this way. I would like to see GJXDM
examples of this before we include it.
Even then, I suggest this documentation should probably be optional
rather than mandatory.
Jim
Cabral
James E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants,
L.L.C.
1111 Third
Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101-3201
(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com
The
information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any
computer.
John and fellow subcommittee members:
I just did a quick
read-through of John's first draft. My comments are:
1. This is
definitely the biggest section and probably the one that will emerge with the
most normative rules. So thanks for getting a good start on it, John.
2.
I think in general patterning GJXDM after UBL is a good idea. I wonder if that's
more of a long-term goal, though, than a short-term reality. For instance, I'm
concerned that the UBL-ish terminology might be an obstacle for many of our
intended users (e.g., practitioners and industry folks involved in integrated
justice) who are just picking up GJXDM and don't want to have to learn UBL
concepts as well.
In other words, I think it's fine for this document to
try to move the GJXDM community (whatever that is) towards UBL, but I think it
should perhaps do it a bit more subtly.
3. Many of the rules are written
to apply to GJXDM itself. I didn't understand that to be within our scope...
I've understood our scope (in Section VI at least) to be more narrowly focused
on standards for schemas built from the GJXDM. That is, what naming and design
rules should apply to my: (a) subset schema, (b) constraint schema, (c)
extension schema, and (d) document schema. Also, how should these schemas be
packaged together.
I think quite a few of the rules in the current
document definitely apply (though, again, I think we might want to remove the
reliance on UBL terminology)...I would only suggest that we not write them so
that they apply to GJXDM itself.
A lot of the rules that may be missing
can be gleaned from the GTRI training materials, the subset and constraint rules
(scattered somewhat around the GTRI
website).
Thoughts???
--Scott
Scott Came
President and
Principal Consultant
Justice Integration Solutions, Inc.
Olympia,
Washington
360-402-6525
scott@justiceintegration.com
http://www.justiceintegration.com
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]