[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Attached proposed person object
Based upon the original proposal and the thread as I interpret it, let me make some observations and hope that the more detailed of the group will expand upon these observations and my recommendation: The issue as originally stated is simply a reorganization of the "person object" as it stands in the OJP DD. I used version 1.1.0 with upper camel case on which to base my comments. I actually looked at the schema while writing this so that John M doesn't embarrass me again by pointing out my lack of detail. The only reference in the schema (that I can find) to actor is "...specify membership in a collection of Actors" in a comment. There are no references to role. I believe that John already pointed this out. The real issue is: Shame on us, why has this happened? In the "Principles for Development of XML Specifications for the Justice and Public Safety Community" there are two bullets that may apply: Bullet 3: "XML Specifications shall be over-inclusive by specifying those elements that may be required by fewer than all participants and making those elements optional." Bullet 7: "Certain complex elements are sufficiently independent and driven by group business rules such that they cannot be used by more [than] one organization. In such cases the shareable simple elements contained within the complex element are defined." If we/NTIA/whomever have interpreted the actor and role elements/hierarchies as belonging to bullet 7 then I propose that we/they have erred. 1) These elements and structures work well outside of courts, court filing and associated document types and functionality. 2) Per bullet 3 they should have been included in the OJP DD anyway. The intent of bullet 3 was to avoid the very problem we are having. That is, the DD has been "extended" (bullet 4) by the court filing TC (formerly LegalXML workgroup) and therefore bullet 5 applies "Wherever possible previously developed solutions should be adopted or extended." I propose that the court filing TC propose to NTIA or the latest taskforce that elements/hierarchies in court filing 1.X, and other court related proposals if appropriate, be added to the DD as dictated by either bullet 3 or bullet 7. DJ has done a pretty good job in the past with such classifications. If the TC as a whole is not prepared to back the current, entire DTD as a proposed submission to NTIA, then I propose that role and actor are sufficiently mature and enduring to deserve proposal on their own merit. If there is disagreement on the content or definition of actor and/or role in a more global context, then the DD process (non-existent to date) must allow public comment from all sectors that presumably will or can lead to a more global definition. Then we can change because someone will provide justification for the change. We then ask GTRI to back up a step, look at the role/actor concept and reevaluate their proposal for "person type" in this context. Or maybe they try proposing a change to "Address" instead of "person type." And if anyone cares, GTRI should justify the change of "PersonalID, AssignedID" from PersonalIDNumber, PersonType being split into BioMetricIdentity and PersonalIdentity (PersonalIdentity is currently PersonDescription) and no reference to name type (current, alias). gary -----Original Message----- From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 8:13 AM To: Court Filing List Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Attached proposed person object It appears that I forgot to attach the GTRI proposal. Here it is. -- John M. Greacen Greacen Associates, LLC. 18 Fairly Road Santa Fe, NM 87507 505-471-0203 ***************************************************************************** The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. *****************************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC