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

[Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]

On the subject of Policy:

My biggest disagreement with the current proposal, is the concept of a PolicyMDE.

I feel that it just doesn't fit well into our MDE concept (it least, not my view of the MDE concept).

 

Why? Unlike our other MDEs, PolicyMDE would not strongly represent a real world process.

There are no foreseeable transactional interactions for PolicyMDE, there are no clearly identifiable users, we have no storyboards... etc etc. 

 

You might not agree with that view.. but, that's ok.  I am only explaining my thoughts. 

Read on.

 

I think that others' biggest disagreement with my proposal (one policy per MDE) , is that, as a practical matter, they do not foresee any MDE-specific policy for CourtRecord vs FilingReview vs Service, etc.    They do not want to define a placeholder for those policies which have not yet been identified (or might not ever be identified).  That's a very fair criticism.

 

So, here's a compromise:

• Let's say that, for ECF 3.0, we define just one source of policy. 
• Let's say that the source of policy is the FilingReviewMDE.
• Let's define that source as FilingReview.GetPolicy().
• Let's nix PolicyMDE

 

I think that approach resolves my biggest issue.

And, since it includes a single source of policy, it resolves others' multi-policy issue as well.

 

Since the FilingReviewMDE/application is the one component that is most likely to be present in every electronic filing system, it will be reliably available to host the Policy set.  And, to be  honest, almost all of the polices we have ever discussed are, in fact, strongly related to the FilingReview process anyway.

 

Is this approach acceptable for ECF 3.0?

- 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