[legalxml-courtfiling] RE: (legalxml-courtfiling) Revised Standard forSpecificatio

[Steve.Spohn@jud.ca.gov]

My apologies for any confusion on my earlier posting. I had made my comments to
Roger Winters' email that contained his Word document, when I meant to comment
on his comments about Catherine Krause's posting.

On behalf of the California Administrative Office of the Courts, including Tom
Smith, these suggested modifications seem reasonable to us.

Steve Spohn
AOC/IS Division - CEFTS Program
Technical/Business Analyst
steve.spohn@jud.ca.gov
(415) 865-7424 [voice]
(415) 865-7498 [fax]

-----Original Message-----
From: "Winters; Roger" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV> at Internet
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:11 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org at Internet
Cc: "Krause; Catherine" <Catherine.Krause@METROKC.GOV> at Internet
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Revised Standard for Specificatio


Catherine, and all other colleagues in the Court Filing TC,

As you and I, Catherine, have discussed, here are my few suggestions for the
Specification Testing recommendations.

In 2), I recommend removing the word "ideally." I think we need to make
testing criteria a part of any Requirements document. As TC Editor, I would
make sure it is part of our template for Requirements documents. Should a
work product not be appropriate for testing, that would be explained.
"Ideally" gives us too much wiggle room to skip doing this step.

In 4), I would remove "as determined by the TC/Subcommittee developing the
Requirements" and substitute "as described in the specification." This would
make testing criteria a required part of any specification which, since it
has to be approved by the TC, would mean the TC as a whole agrees on those
criteria for each specification, not just the drafting group.

In 6) a), I would change "should" to "must," and we will work to have a
template for testing reports.

In 7), I would add a third statement, following an "and/or" at the end of
b): "c) When it has met other criteria approved for it by the TC." Even if
a) and b) cover most of what we can imagine today would be relevant to this
point, we should expect there will be specifications where other criteria
need to be applied.

In 8), I recommend removing the word "Interoperability" because we would
want all special terms to be defined explicitly in any kind of testing
documents. It would, of course, be up to the drafters to realize what
"special terms" they are using that need definition. However, in the review
process, it  would be appropriate for anyone giving input to ask for
definition of any terms.

I hope these comments help strengthen this good piece of work.

Regards,

Roger

Roger Winters
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County Department of Judicial Administration
MS: KCC-JA-0609
516 Third Ave., E-609
Seattle, Washington 98104-2386
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
Roger.Winters@metrokc.gov <mailto:Roger.Winters@metrokc.gov>