Eric,
Yes, the ECF 4 cardinality column actually reflects ECF 4.01.
I’ll look into the issue with the definitions.
I haven’t seen an agenda for today’s meeting.
__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532
From: Eric Eastman
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:31 AM
To: James E Cabral
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - ECF5-NIEM3.1-mapping.xlsx uploaded
Jim,
To clarify the "ECF4 Constraints" column referrers to to ECF 4.0.1 which is substantially different from ECF 4. Is that correct?
It looks like the "Source Definition" column didn't get sorted with the rest of the sheet. I doubt "j:Offense/nc:ActivityLocation" is where I should put "A person related to another person in this case" as line 3 would have me believe. I could help fix this
if needed.
Do we have an agenda yet for this meeting?
It seems like we would all like a standard that is so flexible that any court can adopt it with minimal effort but is also so carefully constrained that those courts and share information easily and take advantage of common software and services. This discussion
is one place where the two halves of that sentence collide and tradeoffs need to be made. My goal is for us to come to a mutual understanding of what the tradeoffs are, to establish an agreed baseline and to have a process, as we refine ECF5 and beyond, to
propose and review adjustments to that baseline.
Thanks,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:16 AM, James E Cabral <jec@mtgmc.com> wrote:
For the cardinality discussion this afternoon, see the “ECF 5 mapping” tab of this spreadsheet. Yellow highlighting indicates ECF extensions to NIEM. Red text indicates changes from ECF 4. ECF 5 cardinalities default to ECF 4 cardinalities
and will be updated based on the discussion at today’s meeting.
__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532
--
Eric Dimick Eastman
Green Filing, LLC
Cell: (765) 277-4158