[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
- object class terms;
- property terms;
- representation terms;
- qualifier terms;
"Implementation" is not an object class and "Value" is not an =
acceptable representation term.
jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
From: Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com] =
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 3:20 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] On Implementation-Specific Data
>>using meaningful, unambiguous object names with clear definitions. =
This would make Court Filing XML inconsistent with the GJXDM <<
I don't see it as ambiguous.
I think that 'implementationSpecificValue' says exactly what it is - a =
piece of data, that is specific to the implementation.
Within that data-item, there are unambiguous details about the data =
item, including its name and value.
>>I still believe locking down the Court Filing XML schema and =
allowing a separate message part with local elements or documents is the =
cleanest solution. <<
I don't know that I disagree with you, with respect to the cleanliness =
of what you are advocating.
Less flexibility usually makes the system easier to describe and to =
implement.
However, I think, in this instance, we must try to support an approach =
to implementation-specific data that is a little more convenient to use. =
It's a matter of practicality.
>> The "implementationSpecificValue" element you propose. I believe =
this violates the ISO 11179 and Federal XML Developer's Guide rules =
regarding using elements rather than attributes <<
Not a big deal as to whether we use element/text() nodes or =
attribute=3D"" approach.
Whatever we feel would be consistent with the existing GJXDM.
Maybe we might find an existing GJXDM element that fits closely with =
what we need here?.
- Shane
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
From: Cabral, James E. [mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 2:32 PM
To: Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com; =
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] On Implementation-Specific Data
Shane,
Using the approach of including local elements in the Court XML, I see =
3 options:
1. The "implementationSpecificValue" element you propose. I believe =
this violates the ISO 11179 and Federal XML Developer's Guide rules =
regarding using elements rather than attributes, and using meaningful, =
unambiguous object names with clear definitions. This would make Court =
Filing XML inconsistent with the GJXDM. =20
2. The "any" element - forget it, it's a non-starter. It's bad, bad, =
bad for so many reasons including the security issues that Don =
mentioned.
3. Allowing implementations to use the standard GJXDM mechanism for =
adding local elements through cascading extensions. We tried it for =
OXCI - it's doesn't work well for the reasons I already described.
I still believe locking down the Court Filing XML schema and allowing =
a separate message part with local elements or documents is the cleanest =
solution.
jim
------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01C55FB4.F72164C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I agree with Jim, of course, I was at =
the meeting=20
and agreed at that time also. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Using the approach that Jim has well =
presented and=20
I support, there clearly needs to be rules embedded in the XML schema =
that tells=20
us where the data exists and what lead document it =
represents.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Since Blue is allowing multiple lead =
documents=20
within a submission that means there may be separate data extensions for =
each=20
lead document. If we were to only have one XML instance, and =
within that=20
XML instance you allow for 'implementationSpecificValue', you =
would have to=20
have this behavior multiple times, once possibly for each lead =
document. =20
If you only allowed for one place holder for=20
'implementationSpecificValue' then you end up with=20
an unclear understanding of how to process the=20
'implementationSpecificValue' for each lead document.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dallas</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DJCabral@mtgmc.com href=3D"mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com";>Cabral, =
James=20
E.</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3DShane.Durham@lexisnexis.com=20
=
href=3D"mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com";>Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com</=
A> ; <A=20
title=3Dlegalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org=20
=
href=3D"mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org";>legalxml-courtf=
iling@lists.oasis-open.org</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 19, 2005 =
4:32=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: =
[legalxml-courtfiling] On=20
Implementation-Specific Data</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D701512022-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Shane,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D701512022-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D701512022-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>We don't need to try to bend a =
GJXDM element to=20
suit our needs. We are free to define additional local types and =
elements as long as we follow the rules for element naming, etc. =
In my=20
opinion, something generic like "implementationSpecificValue" is not =
compliant=20
with 11179. From 11179-5:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><SPAN class=3D701512022-19052005><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>6.1.1 Semantics of name components</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Components consist of=20
discrete terms. The components described in this part of ISO/IEC =
11179=20
are:</FONT></P>
<P align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>- object =
class=20
terms;</FONT></P>
<P align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>- =
property=20
terms;</FONT></P>
<P align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>- =
representation=20
terms;</FONT></P>
<P align=3Dleft><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>- =
qualifier=20
terms;</FONT></P></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D701512022-19052005><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2>"Implementation" is not an object class and "Value" is not an =
acceptable representation term.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D701512022-19052005><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D701512022-19052005><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> jim</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
<HR tabIndex=3D-1>
<FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com=20
[mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May =
19, 2005=20
3:20 PM<BR><B>To:</B>=20
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:=20
[legalxml-courtfiling] On Implementation-Specific =
Data<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><STRONG>>>using meaningful,=20
unambiguous object names with clear definitions. This would make Court =
Filing=20
XML inconsistent with the GJXDM=20
<<</STRONG></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005>I don't see it as=20
ambiguous.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005>I think that =
'implementationSpecificValue' says exactly what it is - a piece of =
data, that=20
is specific to the implementation.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005>Within that =
data-item,=20
there are unambiguous details about the data item, including its name =
and=20
value.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><STRONG><SPAN =
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005>>></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>I still believe locking down the Court Filing =
XML schema=20
and allowing a separate message part with local elements or documents =
is the=20
cleanest solution. =
<<</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005>I don't know that I disagree with you, with =
respect=20
to the cleanliness of what you are=20
advocating.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005>Less flexibility usually makes the system =
easier to=20
describe and to implement.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005>However, I think, in this instance, we =
must try to support an approach to implementation-specific data=20
that is a little more convenient to use. It's a matter of=20
practicality.</SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
=
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></SPAN=
></FONT></SPAN></DIV></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><STRONG>>> <SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>The "imple<SPAN=20
class=3D643343021-19052005>me</SPAN>ntationSpecificValue" element you=20
propose. I believe this violates the ISO 11179 and Federal XML=20
Developer's Guide rules regarding using elements rather than =
attributes=20
<<</FONT></SPAN></STRONG></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT=20
face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005>Not a big =
deal as to=20
whether we use element/text() nodes or attribute=3D""=20
approach.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005>Whatever we feel=20
would be consistent with the existing =
GJXDM.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005>Maybe we =
might find=20
an existing GJXDM element that fits closely with what we need=20
here?.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005>-=20
Shane</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D346135721-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
<HR tabIndex=3D-1>
<FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> Cabral, James E.=20
[mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 19, 2005 =
2:32=20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com;=20
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE:=20
[legalxml-courtfiling] On Implementation-Specific =
Data<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Shane,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Using the approach of including local =
elements in=20
the Court XML, I see 3 options:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>1. The "imple<SPAN=20
class=3D643343021-19052005>me</SPAN>ntationSpecificValue" element you=20
propose. I believe this violates the ISO 11179 and Federal XML=20
Developer's Guide rules regarding using elements rather than =
attributes,=20
and using meaningful, unambiguous object names with clear =
definitions.=20
This would make Court Filing XML inconsistent with the =
GJXDM. =20
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>2. The "any" element - forget it, it's=20
a non-starter. It's bad, bad, bad for so many reasons =
including the=20
security issues that Don mentioned.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005>3</SPAN>. Allowing <SPAN=20
class=3D341580221-19052005>implementations to use the =
standard <SPAN=20
class=3D643343021-19052005>GJXDM </SPAN>mechanism for <SPAN=20
class=3D643343021-19052005>adding </SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D643343021-19052005>local </SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D643343021-19052005>elements</SPAN><SPAN =
class=3D643343021-19052005>=20
through cascading extensions</SPAN>. We tried it for OXCI - it's =
doesn't=20
work well for the reasons I already=20
described.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>I=20
still believe locking down the Court Filing XML schema and allowing a =
separate=20
message part with local elements or documents is the cleanest=20
solution.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D341580221-19052005><FONT face=3DArial =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2> jim</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D485514914-19052005><FONT face=3D"Comic Sans MS" =
color=3D#0000ff=20
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00F9_01C55FB4.F72164C0--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]