legalxml-courtfiling — archive

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Review of comments on domain models, GJXDM mapping, and schemas

From: Christopher Durham
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 15:04:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Review of comments on domain models, GJXDM mapping, and schemas

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:09:53 -0700

I am posting multiple responses to the committee report, so that distinct discussion threads can exist.

This post represents some general comments.

>> These are comments which the Review Committee does not believe should be accepted into ECF 3.0

I don't understand what that means.

>> We are not aware of CMISs that calculate fees for multiple simultaneous filings in the same case

There isn't any debate here I just wanted to add these comments:

I don't know if that observation is cause for us to take any action in our spec.

There are few courts that currently support any of the interactions we have proposed, right?

We can only ask ourselves, does the interaction make good sense in our proposed framework and processes and, is the interaction reasonably feasible?

In this case, if it is conceivable that a court has the software engine to calculate fees for a singular filing, then, it is also conceivable that the same engine could be leveraged to calculate fees for a group of filings. There really isn't an =y need for us to fuss about it. As always, there could be possible issues regarding timeouts and such with very large groups (or even a very large filing, with thousands of participants). But, that's just a given issue for any of our interactions, eh?

>> The person and organizational relationships are a central feature of the GJXDM model. We are not at liberty to disregard them

I agree with that sentiment - but I might change my mind when the rubber meets the road.

With my comments, I was trying to place on the table my view that, if we discover that the GJXDM is significantly inadequate or awkward in this particular area ( or any area ), then we should just create LegalXML-specific extensions.

SquarePeg/Round-hole:

At some point, when we find ourselves making exceptional efforts to fit a square peg in a round-hole, then it is a disservice to both the LegalXMl community and GJXDM.

(1) We make it unnecessarily cumbersome for the legalXML folks that need to express their square-pegs.

(2) The GJXDM folks continue to believe that they do not need to create the square-hole.

The GJXDM extension process allows us to say " This part stinks. We had to create our own thing. " And, we formally draw attention to the matter.

Now, I suppose all of that should go without saying - I might've jumped the gun a bit. I really don't know that the GJXDM model is all that bad. I probably should have waited to see what the XML samples look like.

So, let's assume there's no issue here.... yet.

- Shane Durham

LexisNexis

From: John M. Greacen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:34 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Review of comments on domain models, GJXDM mapping, and schemas

The review committee, consisting of , , and me, have reviewed the comments submitted by Don Bergeron, Shane Durham and Dallas Powell. The committee report is attached.

The committee disagreed with twelve of Shane’s comments. Those twelve issues are listed at the beginning of the report and will be placed on the agenda for the ECFTC conference call scheduled for next Tuesday, October 11^th at 1:00 pm Eastern.

Please review the committee report and Shane’s comments (the committee report merely summarizes his comments; you need to read his comments to fully understand and appreciate them) prior to the meeting so that we can reach closure on these issues next Tuesday.

Next Tuesday’s agenda will include additional items if they are ready for review by that time. It will be an important TC meeting.

John M. Greacen

Greacen Associates, LLC

HCR

505-289-2164

505-289-2163 (fax)

505-780-1450 (cell)