Rolly, Robin, a few thoughts on the "roles" topic....
and how we will be approaching the topic as we continue our document analysis for federal attorney mark-up language development.
As the ebxml.org specification notes to maximize interoperability there is a need to ensure internally unique business process requirements are accommodated beyond the scope of standards used for information exchanges between businesses.
CourtFiling must facilitate extensibility... from all court filing user perspectives as TC members collaborate with Integrated Justice/Global Justice colleagues we are defining the core standards recognized and to be commonly used by the justice community and perhaps other related communities... such as regulatory agencies... ( e.g. Federal Trade Commission as already implemented an XML-enabled complaint form that is used with National White Collar Crime Center (Georgia) single transaction transfers using SOAP and XML; FTC is planning a XML data exchange with FBI).
The Justice XML Data Dictionary defines the Common Language with one to one correspondence between words and meaning; and supports Common Semantics common meaning, as distinct from words, expression or presentation.
The title defined in the Justice data dictionary from the source perspective probably means entitlement, evidence of ownership; The "title" as we <may> extend it in the legal court filing perspective would likely be a term of respect; meaning honorific; designation; the reuse of "title" by Court Filing may be minimal... given the importance of filer authentication the definition of "role" would seem to be the common term in use to characterize the different actors who initiate court filings or author court case documents... role in the court filing sense to me means position, function as the initiator of the filing transaction, capacity in e-filing... the "role" establishes the data exchange relationship between the authorized court filers and the justice entities that receive or send the court case information.
The business rules/court procedures/notices will define the roles (and perhaps bestow a title on the individual).
I suggest that any definition provided to the Justice Data Dictionary workgroup refer to a business reference as part of the description.
for example: Judge and Justice what are the differences?
is there a need from the data dictionary standpoint to provide refined definitions for both roles ...?
or can we extend the basic Justice Data Dictionary common meaning to call out those differences in the CourtFiling 2.0 specification?
Rolly's listing is a helpful road map as we develop 2.0 court filing and court document.
I would also note again that implemented security standards as well as business architectures will contribute to the role definitions as they are extended in each environment.
diane
