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] Attached proposed person object
From: "Poindexter, Gary W" <>
To: Court Filing List <>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:13:54 -0400
Based upon the original proposal and the thread as I interpret it, let me
make some observations and hope that the more detailed of the group will
expand upon these observations and my recommendation:
The issue as originally stated is simply a reorganization of the "person
object" as it stands in the OJP DD. I used version 1.1.0 with upper camel
case on which to base my comments. I actually looked at the schema while
writing this so that John M doesn't embarrass me again by pointing out my
lack of detail.
The only reference in the schema (that I can find) to actor is "...specify
membership in a collection of Actors" in a comment. There are no references
to role. I believe that John already pointed this out.
The real issue is: Shame on us, why has this happened?
In the "Principles for Development of XML Specifications for the Justice and
Public Safety Community" there are two bullets that may apply:
Bullet 3: "XML Specifications shall be over-inclusive by specifying those
elements that may be required by fewer than all participants and making
those elements optional."
Bullet 7: "Certain complex elements are sufficiently independent and driven
by group business rules such that they cannot be used by more [than] one
organization. In such cases the shareable simple elements contained within
the complex element are defined."
If we/NTIA/whomever have interpreted the actor and role elements/hierarchies
as belonging to bullet 7 then I propose that we/they have erred.
1) These elements and structures work well outside of courts, court filing
and associated document types and functionality.
2) Per bullet 3 they should have been included in the OJP DD anyway. The
intent of bullet 3 was to avoid the very problem we are having. That is, the
DD has been "extended" (bullet 4) by the court filing TC (formerly LegalXML
workgroup) and therefore bullet 5 applies "Wherever possible previously
developed solutions should be adopted or extended."
I propose that the court filing TC propose to NTIA or the latest taskforce
that elements/hierarchies in court filing 1.X, and other court related
proposals if appropriate, be added to the DD as dictated by either bullet 3
or bullet 7. DJ has done a pretty good job in the past with such
classifications.
If the TC as a whole is not prepared to back the current, entire DTD as a
proposed submission to NTIA, then I propose that role and actor are
sufficiently mature and enduring to deserve proposal on their own merit. If
there is disagreement on the content or definition of actor and/or role in a
more global context, then the DD process (non-existent to date) must allow
public comment from all sectors that presumably will or can lead to a more
global definition. Then we can change because someone will provide
justification for the change.
We then ask GTRI to back up a step, look at the role/actor concept and
reevaluate their proposal for "person type" in this context. Or maybe they
try proposing a change to "Address" instead of "person type."
And if anyone cares, GTRI should justify the change of "PersonalID,
AssignedID" from PersonalIDNumber, PersonType being split into
BioMetricIdentity and PersonalIdentity (PersonalIdentity is currently
PersonDescription) and no reference to name type (current, alias).
gary
