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] MDE interface vs. implementation terminology
From:
To:
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 07:27:26 -0700
Scott,
Your understanding of an MDE as 'interface' is
consistent with mine, and is consistent with the original proposed
concept.
As for a term that would represent a specific, physical
implementation of an MDE...
"MDE Implementation" or just
"Implementation".. would be fine, though, I like
this one better: 'Application'.
'Application' is short
for 'LegalXML Application', and it refers to
a physical implementation of one or more MDEs, in whole or in
part.
For example: A 'FilingReviewApplication'
is an implementation of the FilingReviewMDE.
An example of how the new term(s) used in
conversation:
The FilingAssemblyApplication invokes
the 'ReviewFiling' function of the
FilingReviewMDE.
Or... we could also say:
The FilingAssemblyApplication sends a
ReviewFiling message to the the
FilingReviewApplication.
-
Shane
From: Scott Came
[mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, September 18,
2005 2:17 PM
To:
Subject:
[legalxml-courtfiling] MDE interface vs. implementation
terminology
At the face-to-face on Saturday, Shane and I took away an action item to
"tighten up" our terminology around the term Major Design Element (MDE).
There has been some confusion as to whether this represents a set of features
that an implementer must provide, or whether it's the implementation itself.
When I've used this term (which, truth be told, Shane introduced to the TC
last fall), I've always intended it to be an interface definition or
specification, not an implementation. It is possible for an implementer to
provide implementations of several MDEs in one physical endpoint or
service. For instance, someone could build a court case management system
that had the Filing Review and Court Record MDEs in one physical
application.
This issue arose when we were discussing splitting the Query MDE into more
fine-grained pieces (which I agree we should do.)
The question then becomes, what do we call an implementation of one or more
MDEs?
How about MDE interface and MDE implementation? Shane?
Also, Shane, if I've missed some key aspect of the issue in my description
above, please elaborate.
Note that the ECF 3.0 specification will have very little if anything to say
about MDE implementations. We're all about the interfaces. No?
Thanks.
--Scott---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
