RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Implementation issue with the OXCI XML Interface Specifications

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

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

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Implementation issue with the OXCI XML Interface Specifications

From: "T J Smith" <>

To: "Cabral, James E." <>,<>,"Vince Harris" <>,"Dan Jordan" <>,"Jim Beard" <>,"John Dominguez" <>,"Khaleel Thotti" <>,"Kim Morrison" <>,"Larry Ronhovde" <>,"Mohammed Shaikh" <>,"Rex McElrath" <>,"Ron Bowmaster" <>,"Scott Came" <>,"Shogan Naidoo" <>,"Siri Woods" <>,"Tom Clarke" <>

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:02:39 -0800

Jim, it seems to me that you are having to deal with some fundamental
operational issues inherent in the GJDXM. This underscores what I and others
have concluded: GJXDM is useful to court e-filing as a reference dictionary,
not as a schema (for more depth on this argument, see the recent series of
articles written by Todd Vincent in Glasser LegalWork's e-Filing Report,
http://www.glasserlegalworks.com). In my view your third alternative is
likely to be the only viable course within the intended life span of the
OXCI project.

<Jim Cabral>
3.	We could adopt a different approach for developing schemas based
on the elements of the GJXDD.  Specifically, there may be more modular
ways to construct schemas that use the Justice XML data dictionary but
are not necessarily compliant with the Justice XML data model.
</Jim Cabral>

There are indeed more modular ways: this is why OXCI should adopt 2GEFS and
its Schema Framework. Technically, that would solve this particular GJXDM
problem, and others not yet identified. Politically, that would put Georgia,
California, Washington, and OXCI on the same page.

Thanks for your forthright exposition of the problem and its alternatives.

TJS

>