[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Comment period for existing artifacts
|
To the extent of time available I have
scanned through the documentation in the diagrams for the Court filing blue
materials in the archive. There has been very substantial progress and
maturing of both the model in the documentation. The allocation of
resources to the items described below should be to the extent possible carried
on by members not on the core team. Their focus should be to go forward
in relating these to the profiles in the nonfunctional requirements. Artifact under review Domain Model
Documentation ·
General
-- I'm assuming that all items satisfy this definition needed will need to be
assigned and covered by the team. Since many of them in that state are
actually reused artifact sets such as person I believe that the definitions in
those cases would be to just set the reused objects into context within the
model. The partitioning of this task should be along the lines of those
definitions that require court domain expertise and those who require technical
domain expertise. ·
development
policy parameters -- I like but has been done here. However, we should
look at our use of plurals in the names specifically the use of the singular
form on supported profile. Although not initially, I would expect that
courts will be forced over time to support more than one profile. ·
Fiduciary
case information -- since there are fiduciary responsibilities for attorneys
and for a corporate officers in potentially employees as well has up or
fiduciary relationships the use of this term of art in such a narrow case may
be problematic. ·
Marriage
information -- I hate to say this I believe we need to change the name of
marriage information to domestic legal relationship. Further, I believe
we need to carry a domestic legal relationship classification. This will
be especially true in states where marriage and domestic partnerships are
legally supported within the same legal jurisdiction but with different
acknowledgment of rights between the parties. ·
General
-- consider, not in this case but in future use to add cardinality to this
section. For example my comment about supported profile versus supported
profiles the documentation of the cardinality at this level would reduce
ambiguity. Blue GJXDM mapping spreadsheet ·
General
-- I see that here you pick up the cardinality for the different items.
This may be sufficient although from a user documentation standpoint we need to
consider the question whether or some parts of the audience may only read a
subset of the documentation artifacts and be misled. Note -- I am more
comfortable with this documentation approach of this time. ·
Regards, Don Donald L. Bergeron From: John M. Greacen
[mailto:john@greacen.net] Comments and suggested changes from TC members by no later
than the close of business on Wednesday, July 27th. Review of the comments by the subcommittee of Cabral, Came,
Clarke, Greacen and Tingom by Sunday, July 31st. Resolution of outstanding issues identified by the
subcommittee on a conference call at our regular Tuesday time, August 2nd. I have scheduled a conference call for that purpose as
follows: Date Tuesday,
August 2, 2005 Time 1:00
pm Eastern time; 10:00 am Pacific time Call in number 1-605-528-8855 Access code 2892164 We also decided on the following additional steps: A subcommittee of Bergeron, Came, Cusick, Complete minutes will follow in due course. John M. Greacen Greacen Associates, LLC HCR 505-289-2164 505-289-2163 (fax) 505-780-1450 (cell) john@greacen.net |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]