Comments on John's Section VI Draft

["Scott Came" <scott@justiceintegration.com>]

John and fellow subcommittee members:

I just did a quick read-through of John's first draft.  My comments
are:

1.  This is definitely the biggest section and probably the one that will emerge with the most
normative rules.  So thanks for getting a good start on it, John.

2.  I think in general patterning GJXDM
after UBL is a good idea.  I wonder if that's more of a long-term goal, though, than a short-term reality.  For
instance, I'm concerned that the UBL-ish terminology might be an obstacle for many of our intended users (e.g.,
practitioners and industry folks involved in integrated justice) who are just picking up GJXDM and don't want to have
to learn UBL concepts as well.

In other words, I think it's fine for this document to try to move the GJXDM
community (whatever that is) towards UBL, but I think it should perhaps do it a bit more subtly.

3.  Many
of the rules are written to apply to GJXDM itself.  I didn't understand that to be within our scope...  I've
understood our scope (in Section VI at least) to be more narrowly focused on standards for schemas built from the
GJXDM.  That is, what naming and design rules should apply to my:  (a) subset schema, (b) constraint schema, (c)
extension schema, and (d) document schema.  Also, how should these schemas be packaged together.

I think
quite a few of the rules in the current document definitely apply (though, again, I think we might want to remove the
reliance on UBL terminology)...I would only suggest that we not write them so that they apply to GJXDM itself.

A lot of the rules that may be missing can be gleaned from the GTRI training materials, the subset and
constraint rules (scattered somewhat around the GTRI website).

Thoughts???

--Scott

Scott Came
President and Principal Consultant
Justice Integration Solutions, Inc.
Olympia,
Washington
360-402-6525
scott@justiceintegration.com
http://www.justiceintegration.com