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] Salt Lake minutes
From: "Poindexter, Gary W" <>
To: Dallas Powell <>,
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:01:53 -0400
Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes
Also
for what it's worth:
1) If
you want to "dumb down" the rendition (display) of the DTD, I'm betting there is
someone on the list that could write an XSLT transformation that could provide a
rendition of the DTD that only had required elements and attributes. This would
eliminate the need for a separate DTD for reference purposes.
2) I
disagree when people undervalue the human readability aspects of XML. I believe
this to be a strength and a major reason for acceptance of XML as a standard for
developing standards. It's true that the machines don't care, but I care when I
have to design, document, test, debug and gain approval from non-technical or
non-XML literate associates and customers.
3) "X"
is for extensible. I do not believe that a "standard" such as the Court Filing
DTD is or must be a total solution for every implementation (ideal, but not practical).
4)
Required elements and attributes must be carefully evaluated because they must
be understood by all implementations.
5) If
an implementation extends the standard, the extensions should be easily
identifiable by other implementations and well documented within the DTD or Schema.
6) I
agree with Todd. The problems that you list, imho, would be easily solved
with a Schema.
gary
-----Original
Message-----
From: Dallas Powell
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 6:02
PM
To:
Subject:
Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes
for what its worth
Having participated in the GCAC
interoperability test at the very end (as both an EFM and EFSP), there
were a few things that we struggled with. Because there was more than
one place to introduce actors, there was uncertainty among the vendors about
where to put the information. Also from our memory there seemed to be some elements that did not directly map to fields we
needed to loaded and updated the SUSTAIN CMS so we made some
interpretations specific to a court.
One of our specific disappointments about the DTD
is that you don't know what type of filing you are receiving until you get to
the lead document.
In speaking with Todd at the CA AOC CEFTS meeting
held in June 2002, my interpretation of a discussion that I had with him
was that there are some areas of the DTD that can work for all courts, and
there are areas where courts need specific information. To encompass
every need for all courts may not be feasible within a DTD, where as schema
offers more options. Perhaps that may give more insight to what a DTD
Lite might mean.
Also, in the interoperability test, since we were
supporting Digital Signatures and no one else could support it, we had
to ignore that portion of the DTD and not include those components in our
transmissions. We did not specifically look at all the elements that
were or were not used. That may be another motive for a DTD
Lite?
Dallas
