Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] ECF: XML Cardinality

ECF Members,

The trade-off is between interoperability, code reuse and ease of development across vendors on the one side (more constrained) and ease of data-mapping and single-vendor development on the other (unbounded). We have a choice between being more useful in cases where in-house or single-vendor want a template to work from or on the other hand we can be more useful in multi-vendor environments need to agree on a common language in which to speak. I would argue that implementations that are strictly inward-looking can just take ECF and relax any inconvenient constraints at no cost to anyone.

Practical effects of (un)constrained elements

Constrained XML elements ...	Unbounded XML elements* ...	Reason
… make life easier for developers	… make life easier for data-mappers and higher-level view.	Insufficient constraints makes it easier to hide sloppy thinking with hand waving. Computers don't do hand-waving, so developers must resolve elements to specific actions.
… force rigorous thinking earlier in the process. May require an extension if ECF doesn't support a concept needed by a court.	… increase the temptation to “show horn” concepts not supported by ECF into existing elements.	The absence of constraints creates a climate of “anything goes” These is a reason we don't try to accomplish e-filing in free verse poetry.
… increases standardization, code reuse and interoperability.	… increases one-off systems and idiosyncratic uses of ECF.	By making is easier to drop a court's existing practices into ECF without mapping or making tough design decisions, we can increase “ECF compliant” systems in name only at the cost of systems that can effectively talk to each other.

* This only applies to XML elements where there is NOT a clear, defined, commonly understood meaning for repeating elements. Of course, there are many elements that should be unbounded.

Conclusion: There is no shortcut or easy way out. Elements must be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine if a clear meaning for repeating elements exists.

I would like to see this resolved one way or the other. If the committee decides to go with unbounded elements, that puts additional costs and stumbling blocks in front of us, but we've dealt with worse before.

Thanks,

Eric

P.S.
Many elements in this presentation are presented without evidence and are the opposite of my experience:

Effects Cardinality Has on Flexibility

Constrained XML elements

Cannot be controlled by constraint schema
Cannot be extended
Must be replaced if extension is needed
Are costly to develop and maintain <--- belongs in other section
Are unnecessary (if unbounded) <--- I don't know what this means.
Should be considered a last resort <--- belongs in other section

Unbounded XML elements

Can be locally controlled by constraint schema
Can be extended
Are cost-effective to extend and maintain <--- belongs in other section
Should be considered the first option <--- belongs in other section

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Price, Jim <JPrice@courts.az.gov> wrote:

ECF Members,

The attached is provided for your consideration. The information is not intended to be all-inclusive, but it is intended to spur conversation. Its distribution was requested by Jim Cabral.

Regards,

Jim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Eric Dimick Eastman
Green Filing, LLC

Web: www.greenfiling.com

Phone: (801) 448-7268

Cell: (765) 277-4158

legalxml-courtfiling message