legalxml-courtfiling — archive

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object

From: System
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:38:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
















legalxml-courtfiling message






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

--

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








Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object




From: "Poindexter, Gary W" <[email protected]>
To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:37:10 -0500






My issue is not with the object model, it is with what model to propose. The
court filing model based upon actor and role (which by the way, permits
justice and business entities to have roles) works beyond court filing.
Build the object model with those classes and subclasses instead of making
new ones. Person may be too narrow a scope for the first proposal, but I
understand limiting scope.

I can't quote a great many implementations based upon the court filing DTD
but I know that there are projects under construction that use it. Texas
Online is an example.

Camel case is a non-issue to me. Pick one and let's do it.

John M caught my incorrect details like <personalIDNumber> vs
PersonalIdentification - sorry if this caused confusion. The point is, the
current standard is not PersonalID as in the GTRI proposal. Change for the
sake of change unless they can provide some meaningful reason why PersonalID
is superior to PersonalIDNumber.

gary