RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Correct version of committee report on recent Durham recommendations

[Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]

The following statements in the latest review committee report are really at the heart of our discussions:

 

Rephrasing an earlier justification for why queries need to be defined in separate MDEs (one special MDE per query), the committee has said:

>> so that implementers have the option of assigning queries to different applications.

 

On the issue of whether the query to obtain a service list, exists as part of the CourtRecordMDE:

>> many courts will not want to allow queries directly against their operating data bases.  So, we created a Service MDE with the function of handling this query.

 

On the issue of whether the query to obtain policy exists as part of the FilingReviewMDE:

>> By maintaining a separate Court Policy MDE we maintain the maximum flexibility for implementers.  Some may choose your preferred course and combine the Court Policy and Filing Review MDEs in the same application

 

I feel that all of these statements reflect a misunderstanding of the MDE concept.

 

In an earlier message, I tried to remind ourselves that how we categorize our functions into MDE, will not dictate or restrict how applications can be assembled.  

 

MDE is an organizational concept.  It does not define how a specific implementation must be created.

 

If, for example, we say that there is a conceptual thing we call CourtRecordMDE, and it includes such-n-such set of defined interactions, we still have not dictated any of this:

 

    (1) Which defined interactions must be implemented.

    (2) Which systems, and how many systems,  should host the interactions.

    (3) Which databases, and how many databases, are to be effected by the interactions.

 

A developer could choose to implement a 'CourtRecordMDE' by creating an application where every interaction is hosted on a separate system, each having its own physical database.   Or an implementer can choose to host a partial set of the interactions on one system, against one database.  Or.. anything in between.

 

 

Applications can be assembled with any combination of MDE functions, across any number of physical systems,  interacting with any number of data sources.

 

Our decisions on how to organize the MDE should not be based upon any perceived implementation advantage of one approach vs another.  These is no implementation advantage.

 

 

I believe the committee's comments do not reflect that same understanding.

 

I further believe that the basis for the review committee's latest recommendations, taken to a logical conclusion, would entirely do away with the MDE concept.  In effect, the committee's recommended approach will lead to a flat list of interactions (one per MDE), without any conceptual or functional grouping. 

 

At this point, the issue on the table is whether we will continue with the MDE concept at all.

 

- Shane Durham

LexisNexis

 

 

 

 

---

From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:10 PM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Correct version of committee report on recent Durham recommendations

I attached an incomplete version of the committee report to my email containing the agenda for tomorrow’s call.  Here is the correct version.  I apologize for the confusion.

 

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