[legalxml-courtfiling-policy] RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Alert - CourtFiling Policy requiremen ts document

["Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>]

Folks,

I, over all, concur with Roger to target option one. I think the authoring
of this document needs to move to a member of the Court Community whom they
would be more comfortable engaging with and who's language they can more
readily understand. I further agree with the creation of an authoring team
and will be glad actively support the team in their efforts. I will engage
in the architectural efforts on this and other Court Filing issues. 

I hope that we can freely use the concepts and specific requirements as
appropriate. I urge everyone to make sure that you understand the goals
clearly before you further engage in writing the requirements. Further, it
is my experience not to get wordy in the requirements. If there are more
words needed, you look to adding specific short detail items under the
requirement to clarify it as I have done in the most recent draft. The
addition of too many words in a requirement often leads to less
understanding and loopholes.

I think it would be a good idea, to work this in a workshop setting at the
Court Filing meeting in December. We may want to spend a full day getting
the statement of work for Court Filing Policy in general and Court Filing
Policy 2.0 in place. We can then check what parts of the current draft
requirements options for reuse. 

Beyond that I think that creating the statement of work for Court Filing 2.0
is another critical topic to be addressed and created at the December
meeting and may well need to be done before Court Filing Policy. If we get
into the flow of it we can make a lot of progress in our two days of work
together. 

Three additional points to think about: 

Architecture - We need to look at a number of architectural solutions to the
problem from all points of view as Roger suggests. However, the key to
architecture is knowing the logical problem well, describing it well,
describing the use-cases partitioning the problem into parts that can be
managed with integrity and there the relationship between the parts can be
understood and managed. The technical path for the implementation of the
architecture is a follow on from this first activity.

Requirements to Specification Release Allocation Document - We need this
document to allocate requirements to a set of specific candidate
specification releases! It should be a document created after the
requirements are set and agreeded upon.  Please remember that some items to
be controlled by policy are specified over time in related documents.
Therefore, this document will be very subject to change control.
Requirements are the specific needs to be filled for the community; the
timing of the delivery on those needs is an item to be managed.

Feedback - I have taken the specific feedback given on this and adopted it
in most cases and credited the people providing the feedback. An author
cannot fix what the author does not know. The author will not know it
without feedback!

Regards,

Don
-----Original Message-----
From: John Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:08 PM
To: Electronic Court Filing TC
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Alert - Court Filing Policy requirements
document


Roger Winters has posted a thoughtful objection to approval of Court 
Filing Policy as amended and recommended by Don Bergeron.  Please review 
Roger's message and let us know how you stand on the matter.
-- 
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC
HCR 78, Box 23
Regina, New Mexico 87046
505-289-2164
505-780-1450 (cell)
john@greacen.net



----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>