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: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG)" <>
To: "'Chambers, Rolly'" <>,"Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG)" <>,John Messing <>,
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 08:39:08 -0400
Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes
Rolly,
I
agree with most of your points especially having this subset as a single
OASIS LegalXML Standard or as a section of one. My concern is jurisdictional
subsetting by individual courts could create an improper subsets. If you
carry this out over a wider group jurisdictions the probability of error is
higher. My further point is, at this time there is no straight forward
software way of confirming that a subset is proper to assist the community.
Subset DTDs become an object that must be change controlled and managed. The
skill set to subset DTDs is often not present in a software developer
therefore you may have more than one person in the loop with the attendant
human communication and human error.
Many
organizations that use more than one dtd (subset/superset) in a
process-flow generate the DTDs from a single master source
object.
There
may be an impact on the EFPs, which would then have to manage the DTD Subsets
from many Courts. This will induce more overhead on their part as they cross
jurisdictions.
I have
found that a metadata approach such as Court Policy can be made deterministic
over time and has a lower human error rate. Additionally, if you use two ways of
providing additional constraints (subsetting and Court Policy) two negative
results can occur. The two constraint systems can have effects at the
intersection that are subtle, hard to reveal plus hard to diagnose and
remove when found. The second effect of this is as you optimize the Court Policy
Constraint handler you only get part of the benefit that you might otherwise
get.
Regards,
Don
