Implementation Reports

[Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]

>>  Dallas writes:
Also, for a report to be a recognized "report" or "addendum" the
modifications must be presented to the TC and reviewed to insure that the
intent has not extended the standard into areas that we do not agree with.
<<

I concur that the implementor's report needs to be reviewed by LegalXML.

However, I don't think that LegalXML should assign some kind of explicit
'approved' or 'rejected' status, or assign some grade to each
implementation.  The LegalXML standard is far too ambiguous for our group to
say that implementor 'A' is doing it the right way and implementor 'B' is
doing it the wrong way.

I think it would be appropriate, for the group, as a whole, to post the
comments generated by the implementation report's review.  The implementor
and LegalXML should continue to exchange comments, until they have satisfied
each other's curiosity (or patience!).

The implementor's report and all comments should be made available to the
public.  In that way, LegalXML and the implementor can publicly indicate
where the implementation might "severely differ" from an "anticipated" use
of the standard. (Still, that would not mean the implementation is 'wrong'.)

At that point, LegalXML can say that the report-and-review process is done.

Having implemented the LegalXML CourtFiling, and/or Document, and/or
QueryResponse standard, and participated in this official report-and-review
process (including a posted version of the implementor's DTD/Schema), I
beleive an implementor should be able to claim (LegaXML should post) that
they are "a recognized implementation of LegalXML
CourtFiling/Document/QueryResponse, as defined by LegalXML addendum document
yadda-yadda....".

All in all, I would expect the process to be an easy one for an implementor
to follow. Simply, show us what you did with LegalXML - we'll tell you what
we think about it.  Everyone gets to see our conversation.  And.. that's it.
- Shane