Overall your use of Part is similar to mine of MDE it is
what the actor is interacting with. I do have a concern, though lessened now by
the point in the project, which is that if you do not name the items below Submission,
Review and Record they would not get the clarity of focus that they need.
Since we have done the analysis with the full set the danger
is lower here. But, if we had used them as a starting point we would not be where
we are now.
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: Winters, Roger
[mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005
11:55 AM
To: '
Subject: [courtfiling-blue] A
Modest Proposal
I've hesitated to jump into this because I am admittedly
not as familiar with the technicalities as so many of you are. However, it
seemed to me that we are hung up over words that carry connotations that cause
problems. On one side (the "component" approach) the implication is
inherent that there is some sort of designed system or architecture constituted
by these components. We don't want to bias our standard by inadvertently (or
subconsciously) adopting design results. On the other side (the
"functional" approach) the implication is ... well, different ... I'm
not sure I understand.
HOWEVER...
Why not rely on the tried-and-true, familiar and simple
word, PART? A "Part" does not imply what kind of "Part" something
is, just that it belongs to a whole from which it has been identified as a
piece. The Part could be an action, a component, a series of actions, or a term
for a jumble of things that, taken together, are well described by the label
given to that Part.
Further, why not put the three PARTS into simpler terms?
We've been talking about "filing assembly" and "Clerk
Review" and other terms that I've found hard to accept because, like other
words, they carry connotations that can cause more confusion than clarity. So,
I think we can do better by trying to simplify, and I hope my proposals below
help do that without doing damage to what the hard-working drafters of the
requirements and Use Cases have intended and accomplished so far.
Here's what I've come up with, hoping it can help us. I'm
not wedded to it, so if there are good reasons not to go in this direction, I
won't hang on.
INSTEAD OF
"COMPONENTS" OR "FUNCTIONS" USE "PARTS"
and
SIMPLIFY
THEIR TITLES TO 1) SUBMISSION, 2) REVIEW, AND 3) RECORD
1) Submission Part
a. This covers the concept
of "assembly" because you can't submit something if it hasn't been
created and assembled
b. This covers the concept
of "delivery" because it isn't submitted until it is delivered
c. This avoids calling a
"submission" a "Filing" (which has bothered me) - leaving
"Filing" to be the term describing what the Clerk formally does after
Review by accepting a submission and adding it to the Record - or, if nothing
else, avoiding a term (filing) that has multiple meanings and connotations
depending on who's asked ("docket" is a similar word in that regard)
d. I assume this is
involved with whatever kinds of queries or policies that are necessary in order
to complete this Part
2) Review Part
a. This includes receiving
the submission (that is, it has gotten "in the door" and was
"stamped")
b. This covers all aspects
of "Clerk Review" - I think it is redundant to say "Clerk
Review," since no one but the Clerk reviews the items submitted for entry
into the court case record - getting away from thinking about people here
c. This culminates in the
submission's "passing" or "failing" the Review
1. a notice of rejection
comes from here upon a "fail" result, and the document doesn't make
it into the Record
2. a forwarding of the
submission for entry into "The Record" (involving either or both of
data and document records/files) follows a "pass" (or a "didn't
fail") result
d. I assume this is
involved with whatever kinds of queries or policies that are necessary in order
to complete this Part
3) Record Part
a. This includes the
capturing of data for whatever purposes in the "Case Management System
(CMS)"
b. This includes the
capturing of "passed" documents as items that constitute the case
"record" (the "case file") - a "passed" document
is added to the "Document Management System" (which we have
previously identified as one of many elements of a CMS)
c. The Record Part would
include not just receipt, indexing, and preservation of documents and
information, but also retrieval, access, privilege management, and
confidentiality - everything that happens with a submitted document (and its
accompanying data) after it has "passed" through all Review steps
d. I assume this is
involved with whatever kinds of queries or policies that are necessary in order
to complete this Part
REGARDING APIs (thanks to "Wikipedia" for finally giving me
some explanatory material that helps me grasp the meaning and significance of
"API," which all the technical folks know in their bones, but which
has been hard for me to grasp)
- These aren't so much "Interfaces" among
the Parts as they are points of "inter-actions"
("interface" sounds passive to me-just laying there looking at
each other-it's the actions that are of interest)
- There are actions between/among the Parts at the
"interface" points (where the Parts connect, collide, or
intersect)
- These, I'm guessing, get fleshed out and
specified to describe the range of actions that are possible between the
Parts when different results are obtained:
- Example A: The Submission Part interacts with
the Review Part to obtain a result of "pass" or
"fail" (or "try again") - each triggers a set of
actions - a "pass" sends back an acknowledgement and forwards
the submission to the Record Part - a "fail" sends a failure
notice, perhaps a fine and advice on error correction, and does not
forward anything to the Record Part
- Example B: At the interface point between the
Review Part and the Record Part, some action has to be possible that will
get the "metadata" exchanged so the "passed document"
can be "indexed" as a Record (there are no "failed"
documents in the Record, by definition) and some action has to be taken
to capture, secure, "freeze," and manage access to each
"passed" document
I hope these ideas contribute to the search for resolution.
Perhaps "Part" can be the term we embrace in order to move forward -
if and only if using "Part" doesn't do some other damage that I
haven't perceived.
I'll be able to participate in at least the first half of
today's conference call, but may not be able to remain on line after 2 pm
Pacific time due to a pre-scheduled meeting.
Regards,
Roger
Roger Winters
Programs and Projects
Manager
Department of
Judicial Administration
516
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
It's time for...
