[legalxml-courtfiling] A Vote Not to Approve the Policy RequirementsDocument

MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]

Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] A Vote Not to Approve the Policy RequirementsDocument

From: "Krause, Catherine" <>

To: "''"<>

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:03:22 -0800

Title: Message

I 
concur with Roger and also vote not to approve the Court Policy requirements 
document.

 

Thank 
you to Don for working on this, and for putting up with those of us (myself 
included) who have let deadlines pass without taking the time to read the 
various versions of this document, and/or for not providing feedback even if we 
did read them.

 

There 
are two primary reasons that I propose that we take an approach such as what 
Roger has proposed with this document, and for all of our future TC work 
products that are part of the 2.0 family, which we have long said will be a more 
"ideal" architecture:

 

1) 
Even though I was present at the Salt Lake City TC meeting where this document 
is reviewed, I find that I cannot remember what the majority of the requirements 
mean.  This is the primary reason I stopped trying to review it and provide 
feedback some time ago.  I suspect that others may have the same issue, 
particularly those of us that were not involved in Legal XML in the 
beginning.  A detailed text description of each requirement, perhaps 
including how each requirement would be used, should be added to ensure that we 
all have a shared understanding of the requirements and can provide feedback as 
to any missing requirements or modifications that might be needed.  I think 
this is the minimum that is needed before this document should be considered by 
the TC.

 

2) I 
support Roger's proposal that this product be tabled for consideration with the 
1.1 series of standards, and instead be included in the 2.0 standards.  If 
this standard is not needed as part of the 1.1 series of standards, there is no 
reason to "grandfather" this document.  It should follow the 
recently-established process, which should start with an overall agreement on 
the architecture for 2.0 before any of the requirements for the individual 
sub-parts of the architecture (Court Filing, Court Document/Forms, Court Policy, 
etc.) are developed.  This is of critical importance and it should be one 
of the agenda items at the Las Vegas meeting.

 

In 
summary, my proposal is similar to Roger's #1 below, including a call 
to follow our recently adopted procedures for the TC.

 

Sincerely,

 

Catherine Krause

E-Filing Project Manager

King County Department of Judicial 
Administration

(206)296-7860