RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Review of comments on domain models, GJXDM mapping, and schemas - QUERIES

[Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]

 

>> A separate MDE should be defined for each pair of a query and its response so that implementers have the option of assigning queries to different MDEs.

I disagree with that framing of the issue.

I have attached a document to illustrate the proposed models and why I continue to prefer the model I have put forth.

 

>> Queries need to be defined for the service function, such as GetServiceDeliveryHistory/Status Queries.

There is no issue here:  My mention of those potential queries was intended to be hypothetical.  I did not intend to propose them for our current release. (Heck, I don't even know that I would support them in a future spec either.  Like I said.. they were hypothetical examples.)

 

>> We have defined a GetServiceInformation Query to obtain names and addresses of persons entitled to service in a case. 

I thought we had decided against the ServiceMDE's GetServiceInformation() query?

 

I am pretty sure we decided that the CourtRecord was to act as 'the repository of service recipient addresses'.  I thought we had decided that the CourtRecord's 'GetCase() function, when asked to include case participants, would also include the service properties (ie MDE addresses) of those participants?

 

Perhaps this query only lingers until the GetCase() query has ben further developed?

 

- Shane Durham

LexisNexis

 

 

---

From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:34 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Review of comments on domain models, GJXDM mapping, and schemas

The review committee, consisting of Jim Cabral, Scott Came, Tom Clarke and me, have reviewed the comments submitted by Don Bergeron, Shane Durham and Dallas Powell.  The committee report is attached. 

 

The committee disagreed with twelve of Shane’s comments.  Those twelve issues are listed at the beginning of the report and will be placed on the agenda for the ECFTC conference call scheduled for next Tuesday, October 11^th at 1:00 pm Eastern. 

 

Please review the committee report and Shane’s comments (the committee report merely summarizes his comments; you need to read his comments to fully understand and appreciate them) prior to the meeting so that we can reach closure on these issues next Tuesday.

 

Next Tuesday’s agenda will include additional items if they are ready for review by that time.  It will be an important TC meeting.

 

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)

john@greacen.net

 

SdurhamCommentsRegardingQueryMDE.doc