legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[Dallas Powell]

 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] Comment period for existing artifacts




From: "Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>
To: <Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com>,<legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:52:20 -0600









Well, if Shane thinks he is late, that would make 
my comments out of date, but, unfortunately, my time has been very 
consumed.
 
I agree that each MDE will have their own interface 
and affect on the policy.  I would imagine that MDE functions end up 
grouped together by some vendors and in such a condition should create a single 
point of reference.
 
I recognize that the LegalXML community has adopted 
the SOAP envelope in replacement of the LegalXML envelope, which is fine as long 
as the SOAP header contain the proper entries that it is a LegalXML 
application.  The net affect is that there should be a standard method for 
LegalXML to recognize that the SOAP envelope is conforming to the LegalXML 
standard.  Without such a behavior it could create significant 
problems.
 
I agree that adopting the SOAP XML structure does 
not demand SOAP communications but without LegalXML markers in the header, with 
version controls, possibly policy controls you will have problems.  If I 
have a system that has been running for mutliple years and I have several 
external MDE systems interacting with it, I better know what they are sending 
me, and I need to know up front the version of LegalXML, and policy version they 
are conforming to.  The idea that I can force each external system to 
upgrade at a given time is never going to happen.
 
Dallas