MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
legalxml-courtfiling message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object
From: "John M. Greacen" <>
To:
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 02:46:48 -0600
In Salt Lake City, when we discussed the requirements for the Electronic Court Filing 2.0 specification we included not only moving to schema and considering SOAP and ebxml, but also making changes called for by the creation of this object-oriented data dictionary. So, we have already recognized the
likelihood of making significant changes, and that we will mark those changes by moving to a version 2 (which will not be backwardly compatible with version 1).
And Messing is right that change at this level would have to carry through into Court Document and Q&R and CMS-API.
The question for me is not whether to contemplate a change of this magnitude, but rather whether this would be a change for the better. Rolly says yes. Gary says no. What do others think?
John Messing wrote:
> The "role" approach is also found in QnR. That would also need to be revised in addition to CF and CD. What about CMS-API and Court Policy? How extensive are the changes, if any need to be made?
>
> The bright side (though it scarcely seems bright in light of the efforts that have been expended to date) is that there are few actual LegalXML implementations of CF. I know King County has some work done already in CF. How badly would a change impact existing implementations?
>
> Until we know these parameters, it is hard to weigh the cost/benefits of a change to an object model for a person or entity.
>
> Each of the other changes outlined by John, even the name case changes, has a destabilizing effect on potential or actual implementations that needs to be carefully assessed. It is not easy to plan or deploy applications with the basic standard rapidly changing, sometimes in seemingly contradictory ways.
>
>
