[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-blue] Development Terminology - CF Blue
We need an abstract aggregation of functions
to write meaningful use cases for electronic filing and service. The
interfaces we are describing are not independent, there is a normal flow or
sequence of processes which is inherently stateful. Rather
than standardizing the storage and exchange of this state information, a
practical alternative is to define the major logical (not physical, not
software) components and limit the standard to the interfaces between these
logical components. I am not wedded to the term "component" but I haven't
heard another term suggested that is better.
Jim Cabral James E. Cabral Jr.
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. From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:57 AM To: 'courtfiling-blue@lists.oasis-open.org' Cc: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) Subject: [courtfiling-blue] Development Terminology - CF Blue Importance: High Like John G., I believe
that having the context of a System Under Design (SUD) is a crucial for the
community understanding of the requirements. This is especially true of the
Court User community. SUD is a classic
component of most use cases approaches. In my part of
LexisNexis we have a term for the abstract part of the system that an actor is
engaging with. We call it an Major Design Element (MDE) An MDE may be
implemented in one or more Applications in a monolithic approach, or client
server or peer to peer. All of which may bring in a library or libraries
of functions to accomplish the task within the applications, which we call
components. This approach allows us
to talk about the system without locking in prematurely or in the case of the
court filing standard, never binding ourselves to any implementation frameworks
except as specified in the profiles. The standard must cover all of our stated
supported profiles. Regards, Don Donald L.
Bergeron
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]