legalxml-courtfiling — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes
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] Salt Lake minutes
- From: Dallas Powell <[email protected]>
- To: [email protected]
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:13:45 -0600
Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes
|
I would like to extend Roger's concern on
"asking, ..., for input, help finding flaws and
problems" in item 2)
It is my impression that no matter how hard you
try, or how much input you solicit, until you force interoperability you
will not be able to flush out assumptions. One implementation will
interpret something one way and another will interpret it completely
different. Assumptions are difficult to see until code exposes the
breaking points.
I support the certification sub-committee Tom
Clarke is heading. Here is a quote from his recent draft Certifications
Requirements 1:
1. Objective The business objective of certification is to ensure interoperability of electronic filing applications using Legal XML standards. The Java certification process imposes what is probably the most exhaustive set of certification test suites ever required to make the claim of "write once; run anywhere" credible. For the same reason, the Legal XML certification test suite must comprehensively exercise the complete Legal XML electronic filing architecture.
Dallas
|