GJXDM MNDR Purpose

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

As our work on the MNDR becomes more widely known, I think it is important for us to reinforce what the TC's
objectives are for our subcommittee and for the MNDR deliverable itself.  I would like to suggest that we craft a
paragraph that (a) briefly describes the intent of the deliverable, and (b) contrasts it with other NDR efforts (e.g.,
UBL, US Navy).  We can then point folks to this paragraph if they wish to know what we're up to.

I propose
something like this (please offer any comments or modifications):

The purpose of the GJXDM Exchange
Document Methodology, Naming and Design Rules (MNDR) deliverable in progress on the OASIS Integrated Justice Technical
Committee is as follows (from the subcommittee charter):

* It will improve interoperability by promoting
consistent use of GJXDM in constructing schemas
* It will lower risk and improve efficiency of projects to
establish exchanges between justice partners, by disseminating best practices
* It will reduce the effort
involved in identifying exchange document development best practices, by consolidating them in (or at least
referencing them from) one single place
* Where possible, it will provide a formal, normative standard that
exchange partners can use to establish criteria for quality assurance (for example, in contracts with system
integration vendors)

In addition, the MNDR recognizes that Information Exchange Package (IEP) development
projects will often seek to reuse IEPs developed in other contexts.  (For instance, Reference IEPs may serve as the
basis for the development of IEPs in particular jurisdictions.)  Consequently, the MNDR deliverable seeks to improve
the reuse potential of all IEP design artifacts (e.g., visual models, mapping artifacts) by proposing a standard IEP
development methodology, with standardized artifacts, and by suggesting the use of only non-proprietary,
open-standard, vendor-independent tools and artifacts in IEPs.

The TC is aware of other successful Naming
and Design Rules (NDR) development efforts.  The UBL and Department of Navy NDRs are two examples.  The MNDR
deliverable under development differs from the UBL and Navy NDRs as follows:

* This TC's MNDR effort takes
as a given the existence of GJXDM, and does not contain any rules applicable to the GJXDM vocabulary itself.  Rather,
it contains only rules for conformant schemas built with the GJXDM vocabulary.
* This TC's MNDR effort goes
further than the UBL and Navy NDRs in defining a standardized IEP development process with standardized artifacts,
including domain models and explicit mapping of domain model entities to GJXDM structures

At the same time,
the TC has consciously incorporated UBL and Navy NDRs into the TC's MNDR deliverable where applicable, and has
remained consistent with the other NDRs whenever possible.