| Contact Us | Search | |||||||
 |
Developing XML Standards for the Legal Community | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
| Contact Us | Search | |||||||
|
Developing XML Standards for the Legal Community | ||||||
|
|
|||||||
Home > Workgroups > Integrated JusticeLegal XML Integrated Justice Work Group Meeting 2
AbstractThese are minutes of the second face-to-face meeting of the Legal XML Integrated Justice Work Group held in Atlanta, Georgia on August 18, 2000. 38 people attended the meeting, one by telephone. Status of DocumentAttendees are invited to submit corrections and revisions to these minutes to Larry Webster by September 18, 2000. Table of Contents1. Work Group Meeting Attendees 2. Work Group Meeting Minutes 2.1. Welcome and Introductions 2.2. Overview of Legal XML 2.3. Review of First Meeting 2.4. Call for Participation 1. Work Group Meeting AttendeesThe following people attended the work group meeting:
2. Work Group Meeting Minutes2.1 Welcome and IntroductionsHugh Collins opened the meeting and asked everyone to introduce himself or herself. Ron Bowmaster moved adoption of the minutes. The motion, seconded by Win Lyday, was adopted unanimously. 2.2 Overview of Legal XMLTodd Vincent provided an overview of Legal XML. The major topics of the presentation were:
Legal XML was founded in 1998 with 17 original members. It now has 18 working groups and 575 members. Its mission is to develop open, non-proprietary standards through a consensus development process with documentation of minority positions. Legal XML is seeking partnerships with other organizations doing similar work. Standards will be adopted only after two interoperable implementations demonstrate their viability. This development occurs in a rights-reserved environment. There are three characteristics of electronic documents: (1) format, (2) logical structure, and (3) data. Legal XML is concerned with the envelope around the data. At some time in the future, Legal XML will become a formal, non-profit organization requiring membership fees. This process will be initiated through a request for funding commitment from participating organizations. No standards have yet been adopted. The process usually involves the development (sequentially) of working group charters, working drafts, a proposed standard with a related comment period, and a recommended standard. Greg Frost asked about the relationship to W3C and NIST. The W3C is not interested in participating in vertical market standards development efforts. OASIS Open (a DTD repository) also is not an appropriate partner. EbXML might be a possibility. Questions were raised about XML use with browsers and legacy systems. Tim Sweeney said that the XML standards for the rap sheet are almost complete. He will compare common elements with the court filing standards in an effort to resolve any variances. Bill Holland believes that the two efforts must involve more information exchange and discussion. Ken Torre suggested that the county CIOs, the district attorneys, and several other groups also should be involved in this process. 2.3 Review of First MeetingLarry explained that fifteen people attended the first meeting in Dallas. Of the thirty-eight people present today, only six were in Dallas. Integrated justice could be considered the umbrella group for many activities; other groups, such as court filing, might be considered sub-groups of integrated justice, but these designations are not important as long as two groups are not working on the same document. In Dallas, the following assignments were made for work to be completed for this meeting:
2.4 Call for ParticipationDave Roberts reported on his efforts and those of Hugh Collins to elicit broader participation in the Legal XML Integrated Justice Work Group. He also suggested that the Legal XML initiative constitutes one segment of a larger series of programs. For instance, court efforts in developing functional IT standards could serve as a model for probation, parole, corrections, and law enforcement. A discussion regarding the standards process and how this effort fits with NIST and Global needs to be held. If we have acceptance of the charter and the work plan, more groups will be willing to participate. Todd Vincent agreed that there is a need for harmonized standards. Tim Sweeney worried that a rap sheet XML standard will be approved by the board, but subsequent review by Legal XML would involve a debate within group of 400 or more people; he suggested the need for an intervening group. Timing is critical. Eddie O’Brien suggested that a law enforcement group be created with Tim Sweeney as chair. Ron Bowmaster reminded the group that two key elements of the Dallas meeting were to elicit wider participation (which has occurred) and then the development of a marketing plan that lays out the structure of how each group will participate. Dennis Moran observed that, while law enforcement already has been developing standards, the standards provided by law enforcement and courts need to harmonize. Courts have an independent process. Terrie Bousquin proposed that more parties than courts and law enforcement need to be involved. She also reminded the group that the development of a court filing standard moved with lightning speed, saying that the open process was not as overwhelming as it might be perceived. Harlin McEwen suggested that this process should be part of the Global standards process; with this structure serving as the working group. This body should be the appropriate institution to oversee the standards development process and should review the proposed standard. The court filing group is a part of the overall effort. Communications need to be bridled a bit to make progress and achieve buy in. OJP could help by providing funding, oversight, and state and local involvement. Dennis Moran made the semantic suggestion for using the term “harmonizing.” He objects to having OJP approval since the legal world as far wider than just criminal justice. Sixty percent of the court world does not care what is involved in criminal justice. Harlin McEwen stated that Global voted to remove the term ”criminal” to recognize the need for embracing the entire civil justice system. Dennis Moran responded that a change in title does not change the process nor elicit participation from all the parties necessarily involved. Larry Webster noted that, while Global recognized the civil side of court business, it does not include representation from other organizations critical to the civil process. XML is traditionally bottom-up development and it has worked. Differences between two approaches require resolution. Larry Webster suggested the need to balance effectiveness and creativity. Hugh Collins stated that we do not want to establish incompatible standards. Todd Vincent proposed that the chaos theory is a good model for this process. Harlin McEwen noted that this group cannot coordinate all justice XML standards. The law enforcement community has been in the standards business for a long time; the courts have not. The courts need to develop their own approach. This group is a working vehicle. An overall body has to provide approval. Tim Sweeney suggested that this group could be a URL review and approval body. David Gavin suggested that Global could be expanded to include other groups that need to be at the table. Ed Papps proposed that this group could be a forum to which everyone can bring standards. Larry summarized, saying that some members of the group are suggesting a change in mission from that which was agreed to in Dallas, that instead of developing standard DTDs, the Integrated Justice Work Group should become a reviewing and harmonizing body. After lunch, Hugh Collins reviewed the morning discussion, concluding that the revised view of the Integrated Justice Work Group would be a communications center. It will solicit standards being developed in the community. It will be an expediter of harmony between standards and their respective groups. It can identify key documents not being addressed and recruit the participation of other groups. Tim Sweeney asked whether one of the roles of Legal XML would be to serve as a clearinghouse. Dave Roberts agreed that the institutional identity of Legal XML would be helped by the development of a clearinghouse. Todd Vincent asked whether NLETS would post its rap sheet standards to Legal XML. Tim Sweeney said that it would, but asked whether anyone knew of any conflicting standards. Todd Vincent said that part of the job of this group would be to do the outreach to determine what else is available. Tim Sweeney agreed, saying that when NLETS submits its document, it then becomes part of the library to which everyone can refer. Dave Roberts asked how the work of this group would be compared with other groups. Todd Vincent suggested that the central function would be to get people and groups to talk to each other. Harlin McEwen said that he does not see that LEGAL XML would ever have any approval authority over law enforcement. Todd Vincent suggested that the Legal XML role would be to bring folks together in an effort to harmonize rather than mandate. Ed Papps said that a natural progression moves from chaos to structure. What we have now is a forum, which is a workable solution. It is the integrated justice group coming together to solve mutual problems. George March has been looking for published standards. Small groups of jurisdictions have developed their own standards that are not published. NLETS only contains a limited dictionary. He (George March) hopes this group would be the body that accelerates participation in a process that would result in a dictionary of elements that would be posted. If each parochial group develops its own standards and goes its own way, the greater possibilities of integration will be lost. Ron Bowmaster pointed out that, in Nebraska, the criminal justice community cannot agree on 350 data elements. The Nebraska legislature is tired of conflicting standards. Local governments claim that they own 100% of the justice elements, but they refuse to have someone who uses 10% of the elements define the standards. Everyone needs to participate in the development of standards common to all for the seamless exchange of information. Ed Papps observed that this group is different in that there are so many large groups represented. Offenders go free because information is not exchanged. George March agreed, saying that reality will provide the legitimacy for this initiative. A group willing to coordinate and publish standards that will be accepted by all is critically needed. Dennis Moran said the strength of this organization is that it is a federation of all the parties involved and does not require any single agency or association to give up authority over their own jurisdictional needs. It is not an exclusive organization or institution. There are some organizations that would be suspicious of an institution with a federal charter. Tim Sweeney suggested that this group should come up with a dictionary for all to use. Each submission can build the dictionary further. Helen Smith said that the appeal of this group is that it is a body to which all can refer when interests converge. It is not exclusive, so anyone can participate when they deem involvement necessary to their business. Larry Webster referred to the manner in which the banking industry is smoothly working together compared to the way in which the justice system is not working. The justice community has to look at new ideas and new technologies for new solutions that can work within our system, including separate branches of government and varying responsibilities. Hugh Collins reviewed the discussion, saying the group has adopted the role of coordinating and is considering the idea of mandating. Todd Vincent said that creation is within the role of Legal XML when nothing already exists. Otherwise, it builds upon other efforts. If someone like Tim Sweeney goes through all standards relating to the rap sheet or vehicle registration, can he then submit the result to Legal XML for adoption after a thirty day review period. Todd Vincent explained that submission at an earlier period of the process would evoke more input. Tim Sweeney asked what circumstances would exist such that Legal XML would grant the standards-making authority regarding a particular item to a specific organization. Todd answered that there is no answer to that question. Tim Sweeney said that there has to be an accreditation process. Terrie Bousquin observed that most court clerks do not believe that one structure would cover both civil and criminal cases. However, when viewed at a higher level of abstraction, vendors, academics, state courts and trial courts have accepted a standard derived through this open process. Ron argued that, unless all parties agree, the problem still exists. Maria Veorem suggested that the critical factor is commitment of the people to come forward and the need to move ahead. Larry Webster noted more than forty documents that cross organizational boundaries have already been identified. Each group could take the responsibility for development of standards relating to specific documents. David Gavin said that law enforcement is different. After input is received, the standard is fixed and mandatory. Win Lyday suggested that this is an iterative process. David Gavin agreed, saying the first step for law enforcement involvement would be to put the rap sheet out for comment. Hugh Collins proposed accepting Tim Sweeney’s offer of posting the rap sheet standard as a test case. Ron Bowmaster reminded the group that there are several levels, including data definitions. If this is to work, we have to involve everyone who is affected. What we are talking about is process. We also need to reverse engineer the data. Acceptance of a standard is voluntary. It will be used if it works functionally. David Gavin proposed that the FBI could take the known set of data elements in the criminal justice community and put it out in general domain. Dave Roberts suggested that the best place to start is at the document level. The Integrated Justice Work Group will adopt, as a new charter, a coordination role and will look initially at three document types: documents on which organizations are currently working, documents on which no organizations are yet working, and currently non-existent documents. Detainers and disposition reports also may be considered. Hugh Collins suggested that the next meeting could be held either in San Diego in conjunction with the IACP meeting (11/11-14) or with the Brain Busters (Legal XML) in Boston the weekend (11/18-19) before Thanksgiving. Harlin McEwen countered by saying that the law enforcement representatives on the committee might be over-committed if this group were to meet in conjunction with the IACP. Hugh promised to check out alternate dates and sites. The meeting adjourned at 2:48 p.m. |
 |
|
|
Sponsored by FindLaw and Georgia State University Electronic Court Filing Project. Copyright © 1999-2001 LegalXML, Inc. All Rights Reserved. General Public Licenses and Disclaimers apply as specified in Legal XML Operating Rules |