[legalxml-courtfiling-policy] Sdurham - RE: Final Call - Court FilingPolicy Requirements

["Durham, Shane (LNG-CL)" <Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com>]

>> Please give a final thoughtful read. I thank you in advance for your
input and involvement. <<


I have attached a word document with my comments.
(use ms-word's 'view comments')

A prior reviewer's comment's "RLW" are also within the document.  Those are
not mine.


General comments and conclusion:

As I stated in Boston, I think LegalXML 1.x is not consistently structured
to facilitate an associated Policy structure.  This requirements spec, while
a respectable and very decent starting point, contains a deep assumption
that policies will be specifically developed against CourtFiling 1.x, QnR
1.x, Document 1.x, etc.  I would suggest we shouldn't be talking about
CourtFiling policies.. or QnR policies.. but, simply, "LegalXML Message"
policies.  Unfortunately, in LegalXML 1.x, there isn't really a consistent
concept of a 'LegalXML Message'. CourtFiling is a bit different than QnR...
and is a bit different than Document.  As it stands, they would need
independent policy structures for each of those API.  And, 'policy' can be
ferociously complex... let alone having to develop it against three models.


The document sufficiently describes the requirements for a LegalXML 1.x
policy set.  However, it reveals to me, that a reasonably implement-able
policy set for LegalXML 1.x is not do-able.  I think the work is too complex
because the underlying Filing, Document, and QnR specs do not follow a very
consistent model (which is simply a sign of an immature API... it naturally
happens... no offense to the development's participants, including myself).


So... I suppose I conclude:

** I can not approve the spec with respect to its intended use for LegalXML
1.x, on the grounds that such work is not technically feasible and that such
work would not be implement-able. Furthermore, I do think that LegalXML 1.x
can facilitate the development of any feasible Policy system as currently
envisioned by the LegalXML participants. **

(I do not intend for my position to become a filibuster.  If I am virtually
alone in this opinion, I will withdraw my dissenting 'vote' and allow the
consensus to proceed.)


With respect to LegalXML 2.x, and the hopes that it has a more
'policy-friendly' approach to its API, a policy requirements spec, at this
time, would be a bit premature but it certainly should be considered a
serious working draft as LegalXML 2.x takes shape.

- Shane Durham
LexisNexis CourtLink

Attachment: SDURHAMComments_CourtPolicy20021018.doc
Description: MS-Word document