RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] MDE interface vs. implementation terminology

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: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <>
To: "Durham, Shane (LNG-SEA)" <>,       
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 10:40:10 -0400














I agree with Shane with one adjustment.
MDE(s) Supporting Application. This leads to LegalXML Supporting Application.
The applications support LegalXML MDEs. An application may support 1 or more
MDE within it.







Regards, 

Don 

Donald L. Bergeron

Systems Designer

LexisNexis



O 937-865-1276

H 937-748-2775

M 937-672-7781 











From:
 [mailto:]

Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005
10:27 AM

To:


Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] MDE interface vs. implementation terminology





 

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]