Tom,
I apologize for the delay. I've been
out of the office quite a bit lately.
I'll try to answer your questions and
concerns as best I can:
1.
I agree that the SOW is
unclear about the scope of the work and the responses we are receiving reflect
that ambiguity. We really did envision the scope to be that of a
technical writer and not a requirements or specification creator in the first
instance. That work does need to be done by the TC itself.
2.
In general, my comment
about the schedule is that it is not realistic at this point and should be
considered suggestive only. The important point is that the contract is
structured to be a T&M basis, so we don't need to use their services until
we are ready to.
3.
The Requirements
Subcommittee met yesterday and we will be posting minutes to the TC in a day or
so. We are planning to produce significantly improved use cases and
architectural profiles before the next face-to-face meeting. These artifacts
are intended to capture functional and non-functional requirements. If
you feel those artifacts will inadequately capture our requirements, we welcome
suggestions
as to other artifacts we could create to better document requirements.
4.
The scope of the
requirements will be driven by the use cases and the COSCA/NACM business
standards. I would guess that they will cover all of the areas you asked
about. Although the requirements will be defined as completely as we can, we may
need to limit what is actually defined or implemented in the next version of
the standard specification, as I believe 2GEFS also did.
5.
The criteria for
evaluating responses is:
25% -
Experience with OASIS and/or W3C formats for publishing standards
25% -
Experience writing technical standards, XML schema and use cases/use case
scenarios
25% -
Knowledge of GJXDM and GJXDD
25% -
Knowledge of court business, court filing national business requirements and
Court Filing 1.1
I hope this helps answer your questions
and concerns. Again, I apologize for the delay in responding.
-----Original Message-----
From: T J Smith
[mailto:TJSmith@ITDecision.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 2:53
PM
To: Legalxml-Courtfiling@Lists.
Oasis-Open. Org
Cc: Karl. Best@Oasis-Open. Org
Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Attached technical writer statement of work
The deadline for
responses to the consultant recruitment has passed, but I have not received any
substantive response regarding the concerns I raised August 10th and again
August 20th. I really would like to feel more comfortable about the
process and consequent prospects of this undertaking, so I respectfully
request a response from TC leadership about both the issues raised and the
candidate evaluation process. Having spoken with other members of the TC
over the last few days, I think it would be best if the response was sent to
the list rather than in a private communication.
-----Original
Message-----
From: John Greacen
[mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 6:04
PM
To: TJSmith@itdecision.com
Cc: Tom Clarke
Subject: RE: [legalxml-ms]
Recruitment of consultant(s) to draft specifications
I ask Tom Clarke to
respond directly to the comments you posted, or to call you personally to
discuss them before responding on the list.
John M.
Greacen
Greacen
Associates, LLC
HCR 78,
Box 23
Regina,
New Mexico 87046
505-289-2164
505-289-2163
(fax)
505-780-1450
(cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: T J Smith
[mailto:TJSmith@ITDecision.com]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 3:03
PM
To:
legalxml-ms@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: karl.best@oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-ms]
Recruitment of consultant(s) to draft specifications
In issuing this
recruitment I think you may have at least indirectly addressed some of the
concerns listed in my posting of August 10th (included below):
"Technical Writer" is now "Consultant," and any time frames
for deliverables have been deleted. Since I (and the TC, for that matter) don't
have the benefit of a formal response to my concerns, I don't know whether to
think of these changes as "fixes" or "patches."
For the record, I remain
particularly concerned about the consequences of incomplete requirements (item
3 in my posting), and the implied commitments regarding TC activities or
deliverables (item 2) in light of past performance. I don't know if other
members of the TC share these concerns, but as this course is being taken in
the name of the Member Section and thus the TC, I believe it's incumbent upon
the co-chairs to address them. Also, I would very much appreciate knowing what
the candidate selection criteria will be.
Mind you, I am not
arguing that obtaining outside or paid help is something the TC shouldn't do,
only that we should make every effort to do it right. It may be our last
shot.
-----Original Message-----
From: T J Smith
[mailto:TJSmith@itdecision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004
10:56 AM
To: John Greacen; Electronic Court
Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Attached technical writer statement of work
As I mentioned during
today's call, I have the following problems with the Technical Writer Statement
of Work.
1.
The nature of the work to
be completed far exceeds the role of a Technical Writer. A Tech Writer
("scribe") is undoubtedly needed for a project of this scope, but it
will also require an architect, designer, or someone with a broader grasp
of the technology (which I note isn't specified) and how it can be applied to
the business problem.
2.
The
deliverables described in the SOW are dependent on things to be produced
by the TC (see for instance tasks 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 3b). I suggest the TC
deliver these things before hiring anyone because (1) they are essentially
on the critical path for the project, so any delays will affect project
deadlines, (2) many of them should probably be reviewed and approved by the TC
as a whole, and (3) they could be useful in screening candidates.
3.
The SOW speaks of
consolidating use cases, but by themselves use cases do not constitute the
formal requirements that I suggest are appropriate for a project of this
significance - which, after all, hopes to produce a national standard. A
requirements document normally specifies many things that aren't made explicit
by use cases.
4.
The scope of the
project's deliverables isn't clear: I assume it includes Filing and some sort
of Confirmation, but does it also include Policy, Query-Response, or an API?
5.
Given the above, I
suspect the time frames are unrealistic.
-----Original
Message-----
From: John Greacen
[mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004
6:54 PM
To: legalxml-ms@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: karl.best@oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-ms] Recruitment
of consultant(s) to draft specifications
Dear colleagues – The LegalXML
Member Section Steering Committee – with the concurrence of OASIS
management – has decided to procure the services of a consultant or
consultants to move our specification development process forward at a faster
rate. In the past when a participating organization was able to devote a
staff member’s time to assisting a technical committee in developing a
specification, the process moved with considerable speed.
I attach a request
for proposals for serving as a consultant to the Member Section. I invite
any member of the LegalXML Member Section to apply for this position. I
also invite you to post the request for proposals on sites or lists where it
may attract the attention of interested and qualified persons, or to refer it
to friends, colleagues or acquaintances who may be interested and able to
assist the Member Section.
Proposals are due
on or before August 27th.
Thank you for your
assistance in this recruitment process.
John M.
Greacen
Greacen
Associates, LLC
HCR 78,
Box 23
Regina,
New Mexico 87046
505-289-2164
505-289-2163
(fax)
505-780-1450
(cell)