RE: [doc-mgmt] RE: [chairs] need input for doc mgmt requirements

doc-mgmt message

Here is a chart we used in a discussion about organizing the burgeoning LegalXML document collection. This may help people visualize different uses and perspectives for document management and retrieval. The Kavi repository only addresses some of the functionality depicted. The LegalXML folks did not get to the point where we approved this or any other approach to the structure of a document repository.

The diagram depicts a Bibliographic database with links to a searchable collection of full text documents. Like a Content Management Systems it should re-use the same objects in many different publishing and research displays and reports.

We were in general consensus that we should use an XML bibliographic schema for the core document record.

In Bibliographic Retrieval systems and web based systems like Cold Fusion there is an underlying database that dynamically publishes html (or XML) displays and reports (author index, subject index, index to different standards, etc. ) from database records. The only changes are to the database.

We should not have to create static html in different pages and then manually synchronize citations, URI's and other retrieval data elements.

We should also make sure any software we consider allows true full text searching not just of data elements but also of the underlying full text of documents in native format, PDF or rtf. Unformatted full text is not the optimum storage media.

We should also look beyond Boolean operators and proximity searching to Concept searching, Natural Language Queries (NLQ), "smart" search engine and even knowledge mapping software.

We received many inquiries during the LegalXML first years from students, researchers, curious technical people and, yes, lawyers, who were not always in a position to frame knowledgeable searches for "style-sheets' or' BLOBS' or from technical folks who might not know the difference between Return of Service and a Certificate of Service.

I differ with Roger's excellent points on one quantitative dimension of purging and pruning the collection. If the documents represent the history of our thinking and deli liberations, even drafts can be important source documents. We will also have links in the public archives to documents in various stages of consideration.

This may necessitate one final element in our list of requirements and that is a link to the final version of official documents.

Co-Author and Annual Update Editor of

-----Original Message-----
From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 12:09 PM
To: 'doc-mgmt@lists.oasis-open.org'
Cc: 'John Greacen'; 'Robin_Gibson@osca.state.mo.us'; 'Dr. Laurence Leff'
Subject: [doc-mgmt] RE: [chairs] need input for doc mgmt requirements

I want to offer a few suggestions about requirements for document management for OASIS committees. Be advised that, though I am in a secretarial role for the Legal XML Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee, I am not yet fully conversant with those duties and powers. It is as Editor for the TC that I offer these thoughts. I hope you'll forgive me if some of these suggestions ask you, due to my ignorance, to do things that you have already handled within OASIS.

Although OASIS has adopted well-developed naming conventions for documents proceeding through its processes, there are a number of instances where a working group needs to share and process files of various kinds, many of which would not themselves become drafts of committee specifications. It would be helpful if, regardless of the filenames given to documents, there were a way to enter a descriptive title that would be shown on the appropriate Web page, to serve as a clickable link to the file. This seems advisable because few of the members are likely to learn the naming conventions because, even though they have a rational and well-defined basis, they look complicated. Once a file gets to a certain point in the OASIS process, e.g., when it becomes appropriate for the Editor to take charge of it as a draft committee specification, the formalities of the naming conventions should be followed carefully. Even then, assigned easy-to-understand titles would be preferable to titles that reflect either the filename or the first few words in the document.

This is, of course, a basic requirement for document management systems, along with having check-in/check-out read/write privileges and controls. It is also helpful to provide guidance, perhaps in a "Document Management Help Page," on what might warrant preserving a current version and issuing a new number to its changed version. I think such version control is likely to be a useful and important tool even at the subcommittee level; that is where participants are more likely to need guidance in finding a balance between meaningful versioning and needless proliferation of files. Tools to manage document ownership and check-in/check-out functionality need to be easy to understand and not too difficult to implement. For example, a term limited subcommittee chair might need only a few simple tools that can be quickly and easily mastered.

Although I am involved with records management, I am not an expert. This is an area where OASIS might want to engage records and information management experts to help design records retention and disposition policies, procedures, and tools. It is important to resist the temptation to "save everything because storage is cheap," because there are other issues and costs besides storage involved in records management. A records retention schedule is advisable, with a disposition strategy that ensures that records scheduled to be disposed of are in fact eliminated.

Roger Winters
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov