Document, CourtFiling, IntegratedJustice

[Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]

In the past, 'CourtFiling' was, more or less, the 'master dictionary' of
LegalXML.  It was important that 'Document' development be kept under
'CourtFiling' supervision so that it has the best chance of being consistent
with CourtFiling.

As we progress to 'Blue', it seems 'CourtFiling' is no longer the keeper of
the master dictionary.  With that in mind, I see no reason 'Document' should
be kept as a sub-group of 'CourtFiling'. 


As we develop 'Blue', I see the following as the logical division of our
various development groups:


** Integrated Justice
They define a common syntax for expressing ANY LegalXML data items and ANY
LegalXML system interactions.
They maintain the master list of all known LegalXML data items and all known
system interactions that have been created by LegalXML.

They accept additions/revisions to the dictionary... they assist with
keeping out redundancy.


** Document
They define a common syntax for expressing a consistent presentation of
*any* LegalXML data item.

Where necessary, they submit additions and enhancements to the master
dictionary.


** CourtFiling
They select WHICH LegalXML data items and WHICH LegalXML system interactions
are 'standard' for the LegalXML electronic filing processes.  In a sense,
this group defines 'LegalXML electronic filing API'.

Where necessary, they submit additions and enhancements to the master
dictionary.



I don't think that this description differs that greatly, if at all, from
where these workgroups are today. But, I thought this review (or perhaps,
'my view') might assist the conversation.
- Shane Durham
CourtLink