[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Don's comments on wd-LegalXML-Court-Filing-Blue-02
|
Don,
Thank you for the
comments.
On the issue of component vs..
MDE:
For the functional storyboards, rather
than MDE, I am leaning towards simply indicating that the user's direct
interaction is with with 'the system'.
And, wherever we find it relevant
to indicate that data is being transmitted from logical point-A to logical
point-b, we can state 'data is transmitted/transferred to the xx
process'.
For example, at some point, the story
might read:
--
Filer indicates that their filing is ready to send to the
court.
--
System transmits the filing to the court's filing review
process.
Just a draft but how's that
sound?
On the issue of payment
story:
As I discussed briefly with John
Greacen (who also questioned our approach to 'payments'),
my current suggestion is that LegalXML should not write or
define a process for collecting payments. These
processes already exist, and are well-documented, and have many flexible
flavors.
I believe none of them are
relevant to our task of defining our LegalXML
processes.
For payment, I feel we only need
to define:
1.
Which processes we typically expect to require/include a 'method of payment'.
(ex:
FilingReview process needs a 'method of payment' per filing)
3. At what point in a functional
process must someone or something be "satisfied" with the 'method of
payment'.
(ex:
the Review Clerk (or review process) must be "satisfied" with the 'method of
payment' before accepting a filing) 2. What a 'method of
payment' might express
(suggestion: amount/limit of payment, standard/non-standard payment
instruments)
- Shane Durham
LexisNexis
From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:46 AM To: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY); 'courtfiling-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'courtfiling-blue@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: [courtfiling-reqts] RE: Use Case Comments 2 of 4 - wd-LegalXML-Court-Filing-Blue-02 General
Comments: Overall, it is a job
done well! In
1.1 Consider moving from
Component Vocabulary to a more implementation neutral term such as Major Design
Element (MDE). Consider thinking
about the placement of function to allocated across MDEs as a Functional Design
Element (FDE). (These will free up
component to be used in a more industry standard
way.) In 2.1
Expand the term
filer - to cover the court and court staff filing outbound or find new term to
cover the concept. Regards, Don Donald L.
Bergeron
From: Bergeron,
Donald L. (LNG-DAY) General
Comments: Overall, it is a job
done well! In
1.1 Consider moving from
Component Vocabulary to a more implementation neutral term such as Major Design
Element (MDE). Consider thinking
about the placement of function to allocated across MDEs as a Functional Design
Element (FDE). (These will free up
component to be used in a more industry standard
way.) In 2.1
Expand the term
filer - to cover the court and court staff filing outbound or find new term to
cover the concept. In 2.3,
2.5 New
Extension: Support
a two phase process payment Phase 1
confirm payment request validity. Phase 2
process payment after confirmation from the Reviewing
Clerk Support
rejection during phase 2 with communication to
clerk Regards, Don Donald L.
Bergeron
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]