OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes Minutes of the OASIS Integrated Justice Technical Committee (IJTC) Face to Face Meeting 29 October 2002 8:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. PST Chair: Co-Chair: Editor:
David Roberts, Unisys,
[email protected] Hugh Collins, Louisiana Supreme Court,
[email protected] Roger Winters, King County, WA, Dept. of Judicial Administration,
[email protected] Secretary/Webmaster: Catherine Plummer, SEARCH,
[email protected]
Logistics Embassy Suites Hotel 100 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California
Agenda 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Welcome and introductions; agenda overview; meeting objectives Discussion of IJTC Charter, OASIS Membership, TC decision- making Discussion of the status of Justice XML development activities Discussion of the Justice XML Data Dictionary Subcommittee reports on the status of development, testing, implementation and vetting of XML schema 6. Discussion of next steps
Attendance Members: John Aerts Chris Andrieu Greg Arnold Fran Bremson Jim Cabral Tom Clarke Jane Evans Robin Gibson David Goodwin John Greacen Richard Himes Amir Holmes Mark Kindl Jeff Langford Diane Lewis Rex McElrath Carol Meraji OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 1 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes Catherine Plummer Sharad Rao David Roberts John Ruegg Christopher Smith Tom Smith John Wandelt Lawrence Webster Joe Wheeler Roger Winters Members Not Present: Terrie Bousquin Joe Cantergiani Gerry Coleman Hugh Collins Nancy Crandall John Doktor David Emerson Art English Dale Good Robert Greeves Maureen Haggerty Karl Heckart Gerald Hoenig James Keane Greg Kirk Tom Kooy Sander Luoma John Messing Joel Munter Mark Oneal Gary Poindexter Dallas Powell Wayne Quinsey Robert Roper Moira Rowley Barry Schaeffer Theron Schnure Bob Slaski Chad Theriot Stephanie Truckenbrod
Welcome and introductions; agenda overview; meeting objectives Dave Roberts opened the meeting and welcomed all to a full day of work. All introduced themselves in turn. Dave reviewed the Agenda for the day:
OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 2 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes * How the TC is going to do its work and make decisions. * Changes or corrections to Minutes. * Presentation from GTRI on their work in support of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, and in particular the development of a Justice XML Data Dictionary. * Subcommittees review, focusing on universal documents. We will be getting status reports from the chairs of each Subcommittee. * Future direction and meetings, including face-to-face and telephone conference calls, and setting some time frames. We also want to discuss how the TC’s work relates to Global and others. * Also want to discuss leadership and organizational structure and support for the TC. Dave noted the Charter is posted on the OASIS Web site. On the telephone conference call we filled two positions—an Editor. Roger Winters, WA Department of Judicial Administration volunteered to do this. The other is Secretary/Webmaster, which Catherine Plummer, SEARCH, is doing. Over the past couple of weeks, Roger pulled together a draft of working procedures. Roger presented the Procedures in summary. John Greacen said that it is helpful and that Court Filing also has these procedures. He clarified that there is not a public comment list to which we post comments. A member of the public can go to a TC archive and find the discussions and work products. If the public takes the initiative to look at the documents on the Web site, then we'll report their input. Catherine asked whether she should share postings to the public comment list; John said that OASIS does not want this to be done. Dave receives calls all the time asking about what is going on with the TC, with Global, etc. Robin suggested that the TC should clarify how things are published to the Web site. It needs to be clear that the author is to notify the Webmaster when something is ready to publish, not publish it unilaterally. Georgia Tech (GTRI) has created a versioning procedure related to technical references to Schema and the Dictionary. They really haven't concerned themselves with governance issues of versioning, but have focused on more technical issues. Robin pointed out that the TC needs clear decisions on how to number specifications, what reflects a minor change, a major change, etc. Catherine said she thinks there might be a need for some coordination with the Justice XML Data Dictionary versioning. GTRI pointed out that this would not be necessary for each document, though a pointer could direct the user to the particular versions of the data dictionary that meet the requirements of that document. Roger sees the need to be to have a subcommittee to decide how to organize the specs for these versions. John wants him to post something to this and the other TCs and to the Steering Committee; perhaps a “straw man” proposal at least for a formal versioning process that all could use. Dave said this isn't resolving the question of how closely coupled this group's work processes are with Global and the Justice XML Data Dictionary. Diane agreed there should be clarification regarding the work of this TC and Global’s efforts in support of the Justice XML Data Dictionary. Conclusion: Need to clarify the public comment list and the TC’s role. Also, clarify OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 3 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes specific timing on when they need to notify the Webmaster to publish this. Roger will also add draft language to the Procedures regarding subcommittees and how they fit into this. John Greacen and Dave will raise the issue of versioning across all of the Legal XML Technical Committees with the Legal XML Steering Committee. Catherine wanted to know what the timeframe would be between the different stages of developing a specification. John Greacen’s experience is that it is all resource dependent. If a group gets serious about a particular topic, then it can be produced more quickly. The next phase is problematic —of going from proposed to recommended because it involves implementations and interoperability testing. This is even more resource dependent, relying on TC members to put it into play to meet the require ments the TC needs to raise the specification to recommended. This can't be globally determined for all specifications. The compliance testing requirements have to be defined for each specification. The Court Filing TC has been going since 1999 without taking any specification from proposed to recommended. Roger said he had created the Statement of Work in part to capture the constraints, deadlines, and proposed timeframes for the proposed specification. Mark Kindl pointed out that there will be no interoperability testing for the Data Dictionary. Dave Roberts said that the subcommittee work might not lend itself to the same testing as Court Filing's products. Roger will send out a revised version incorporating these concerns and then the List can discuss and review for a set period and then adopt it or not.
Governance Dave said he would like to have discussion of how the TC leadership is selected, how long the leadership serves, powers and duties, and procedures to ensure an open, active and appropriate method for selecting people to lead the TC. How do we make decisions regarding who will serve as Chair and Vice-Chair, or whatever positions we believe we should have? Dave and Hugh essentially volunteered to co-chair the Integrated Justice TC as a way of initiating the effort and to provide support, direction and a sense of continuity, but there has not been a formal process to elect or otherwise appoint a formal leadership of the TC with input from the members. What have the other TCs done? We've selected a Secretary/Webmaster and an Editor. Do we need other positions? How do we select members to fill these positions, and for how long? (No ideas surfaced.) Diane spoke about use of co-chairs with different areas of expertise, perhaps balancing users and business experts. We need to better understand the Global initiatives and whether federal representation would be better here versus other constituencies. This TC's co-chair is Hugh Collins from the Louisiana Judiciary. Dave said there's no formal way presently defined to have the leadership of the TC naturally evolve or change. He suggested that one alternative was to formally elect persons to serve as Chair (and co-chair, and perhaps vice-chair), and that these terms run for a period of two years. Dave noted that he wanted to ensure that the leadership of the Integrated Justice TC reflects the on-going support of the membership of the TC and does not continue to serve simply because no procedure exists to facilitate a change in leadership. Diane noted that OASIS is based on annual membership, so she recommends there should be an annual review. There has to be continuity, but we all lead busy lives, and perhaps one person cannot continue to provide the continuing level OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 4 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes of support demanded for the TC. John Aerts said he feels this committee is addressing national needs as well as state and local. Diane said there has to be a visible representation—she suggested, for example, that there be ABA representation in Court Filing TC, for it has been lacking there. She sees this as an issue of balance—we’re in an international arena and need to reflect it in the leadership. This group, she said, goes beyond Global in a sense. Dave said he wants to suggest a specific proposal, that we're going to have a Chair and Vice Chair, staggered two-year terms, perhaps limiting succession to no more than two consecutive terms. The proposal can be posted for comment and resolved in time for the next conference call. John Greacen said we don't have to limit it to two leaders. He said there might be political reasons for having additional co-chairs (e.g., representing industry, federal, ABA). IJ has so many constituencies that have to be at the table. Dave and Catherine will draft a proposal regarding TC leadership selection and succession and post to the website for comment. Roger suggested we could form an advisory committee constituted from these stakeholder groups to meet the political needs, and he observed that we also want to attract representatives from these groups to join the "Worker Bees" as well. We need an Ombudsman to monitor the comments from the public. John said there were no comments at Court Filing.
Discussion of the status of Justice XML development activities History The Integrated Justice Work Group of Legal XML met first Dallas in June 2000. The IJTC met again in June 2001 in Atlanta, and based on the initial analysis of the exchanges captured in SEARCH’s Justice Information Exchange Model (JIEM) project, five priority exchange documents were identified as candidates for XML schema development. At a subsequent meeting of the IJTC in August, 2001 (Baltimore), first drafts of schema developed for the arrest report, charging document, and sentencing order were reviewed. Mark Kindl, GTRI, provided an initial analysis of the JIEM data, and its potential for developing an object oriented justice XML data dictionary. Global’s XML Reconciliation effort began in March 2001. Toward the end of 2001, AAMVA was brought in to the reconciliation. SEARCH and others here have worked with Global to push the broader structure embodied in the Data Dictionary. Global created an Emerging Technologies Committee, chaired by Jim Roggero, to take on this work, to build on what had been learned in the reconciliation and add what was needed in terms of structures and new contents, etc. In March, 2002, following the SEARCH Symposium in Washington, DC, the IJTC had its final meeting as a LegalXML entity. The migration from LegalXML to OASIS was discussed and voted upon. John Wandelt and Mark Kindl, GTRI, presented a detailed analysis of the Reconciliation and JIEM data, and a more developed conceptual framework for developing a Justice XML Data Dictionary/Object Component Reuse Repository.
OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 5 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes
In May, 2002, at the Global meeting in Charleston, SC, a XML Structure Task Force (XSTF) was created under the Emerging Technologies Committee. Broad principles were identified to guide the development of the Justice XML Data Dictionary. The XSTF has made significant progress, utilizing not only the reconciliation elements, and the elements contained in the work products of the IJTC, but additional XML specifications from several sites, including Wisconsin, LA County, Minnesota, and others. The effort has been guided in a substantive way by John Wandelt and Mark Kindl, and their staff at GTRI. US DOJ, on behalf of Global, has contracted with GTRI to continue to provide technical assistance and support for the Justice XML Data Dictionary. John and Mark will demonstrate the shape of the dictionary and describe how it works. Global has endorsed this effort and is behind it strongly. Diane said she knows that this dictionary is a candidate for xml.gov, where the CIO is looking for projects to serve as pilots and prototypes. The effort is fully supported. Each department is creating an "E- Gov" office. She said her presence indicates their interest in these kinds of initiatives. Dave said this overall effort is extraordinarily valuable, and he noted that Steve Cooper, CIO of the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) recently identified five major initiatives for OHS: 1) Horizontal integration of federal information systems; 2) Vertical integration to share information at federal, state, regional, tribal and local levels; 3) The development of common metadata standards for homeland security initiatives; 4) Improvement of public safety communications; and 5) Initiatives to help build and ensure reliable public health information. One other effort Dave briefly discussed was the Justice Standards Registry. Global, BJA, and DOJ recognized the importance of having a single online web site that is a register of justice-relevant IT standards generally—to serve as a pointer index as well as a repository of those standards. A prototype of the standards registry has been developed and it is being populated with a number of standards, including both technical and functional standards, and these are searchable by standard-type and by discipline. John Greacen said that Congress passed a statute for Government Paperwork Reduction, with a target date of October 27, 2003, for all federal agencies to provide services to the public in electronic form "where feasible," requiring that any application for public services or benefits be available in electronic form from that date. John Aerts said the Justice Registry vendor built it on the requirements that were given to them. He said that comments should be shared so they can be taken to the federal government and perhaps have it be fixed. Dave Roberts noted that the Standards Registry is available at: http://www.it.ojp.gov, and he urged TC members to begin reviewing the site and offering comments to OJP. Diane mentioned that they had discussed a trusted repository concept in another TC. She would want to know that a given standard will be available at a particular repository or trusted source. This has to be considered. There are other initiatives, e.g., in NIST and government-wide. Roger added that it is a records management issue, since many of these documents will need to be preserved for decades or longer. John Greacen said that when the Registry was developed, there was a requirement that the specifications could only be posted by a government body. Dave Roberts said that OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 6 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes there had been agreement that SEARCH, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), and other groups that are quasi-governmental, will be able to post standards to the Registry. The Registry's goal is to track development of standards and to serve as the repository for them. They still have issues to resolve, e.g., some of the standards are proprietary. Dave said they have only begun to scratch the surface on who the principal users of this repository will be, how users will access the standards, etc. The effort initially focused on submission of the standards, rather than on defining who the primary users were and how the Registry would be used by practitioners and industry, but that OJP and their contractors were now actively working on these critical issues in support of the Registry under Carol Meraji's leadership. Dave again noted that it is important for TC members to review the Registry and to provide comments and recommendations to OJP, suggesting development to make the site and the Registry useful for practitioners and industry solution providers.
Discussion of the Justice XML Data Dictionary Dave Roberts gave some background foundation regarding development of the Justice XML Data Dictionary. At their June 2001 face-to-face meeting in Atlanta, GA, Members of the Integrated Justice Technical Committee called for development of an Object Repository/Data Dictionary Working Group, to begin development of an Object Repository/Data Dictionary that would collect, maintain and support XML specifications in an on-line format, focusing particularly on the universal data and datasets identified in the JIEM project, but not tied to any particular document or specific exchange. The Object Repository/Data Dictionary would enable users and developers to upload, download, and/or reference universal XML specifications in the justice discipline, regardless from which exchange or document they originated. Coincident with, and slightly preceding the work of the Legal XML Integrated Justice Workgroup, the Infrastructure/Standards Working Group (ISWG) of the Global Justice Information Network Advisory Committee (Global), began support for the reconciliation of established or draft XML specifications among three justice stakeholder groups active in XML development: the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) XML Data Exchange Specification, the Electronic Court Filing 1.0 XML Specification, and the XML Interstate Criminal History (Rap Sheet) Transmission Specification. That reconciliation effort has continued, and the scope of work of the ISWG has expanded to begin addressing broader structural and governance issues associated with development, implementation, maintenance and support of a universal Justice XML Data Dictionary. The reconciliation effort was begun in March 2001, and continued through March 2002. In Fall 2001 the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) was added to the reconciliation effort, and their XML specifications have also begun to shape the reconciled Justice XML Data Dictionary. Much of the initial work of the Object Repository/Data Dictionary Working Group has contributed to the deliberations of newly formed subcommittees of ISWG, and there is every expectation that Global will continue to support development, implementation, maintenance and support of the universal Justice XML Data Dictionary. Accordingly, the Object Repository/Data Dictionary Working Group of the IJTC will not continue with core development in this area, and the full IJTC will instead monitor, comment upon, and serve as a vetting mechanism for the universal Justice XML Data Dictionary.
OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 7 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes
John Wandelt led the first part of the presentation. Background: Global ISWG – XML Reconciliation Data Dictionary (RDD) project, from Rap Sheet, RISS, Court Filing. There was no direct business need for the exchange of information among these groups, however, it was a productive effort that produced appropriate principles of reconciliation, e.g., being overly inclusive. Legal XML IJWG met in Atlanta and came up with the standard documents for the Justice Information Exchange Model (JIEM). The idea was to come up with a work plan for this group. There was also discussion of a consistent XML Object Repository -- how do we retain them consistently and accelerate how we produce those documents. Start with a schema and build ever more complex types based on it. In Global, they had some success of their RDD. There was discussion of how to take it to the next level and whether to take it to another level. Should they take the reconciliation to include other areas? How did what they built map against other efforts? From this discussion came the concept of a structure: * DD Schema * Methodology * Formal Rules * Reference Architecture A year's worth of work became a report with best practices and principles for building a dictionary of this nature. It is planned to be on the OJP Web site. It caused a stir. They realized they needed to document the reasons for this development. (The document is "Structure and Design Issues for Developing, Implementing, and Maintaining a Justice XML Data Dictionary ") http://www.it.ojp.gov/initiatives/files/JusticeXMLStructureTaskForceReport.doc
Goal of XSTF was to make meaning and sense of all this. Early meetings included some people who wanted to pursue their own apps. The XSTF realized that it needed to address the broader needs of justice and public safety. Assumptions: 1. Design implement common set of reusable, extensible data components 2. Generalize for the justice and public safety community at-large - do NOT target specific applications. 3. Provide reference-able schema components for schema developers. 4. Justice XML DD and Schema will evolve, change, and require extensions - best extension method will minimize impact on prior investments. 5. Must represent and implement domain relationships. 6. No Silver Bullets - time, technical, and requirement constraints mandate rational trade-offs. Need a plan. How do we know when the work is "done" on this? There will always be a baseline, but it will continue to evolve. The JXDD Version 3.0 will be based on a consistent technology and methodology that will be "completed" in a reasonable amount of time. Minimizing the impact to the early adopters is a key to the effort. Plan: Version 1.0: based on RDD (Rap Sheet, Court Filing, RISS, and AAMVA) OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 8 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes
Version 2.0: Reference-able schema, normative, reusable type definitions, global element definitions, parser validates schema. RDD used lowerCamel case. Since then, federal standard is UpperCamel case. GTRI will create translators to convert 2.0 to 2.1. 3.0 Version of the Dictionary is first version that truly implements object-oriented (inheritance), improve utility and reuse, standard structure, extension mechanism, basic domain relationships, standards based. We should all be targeting 3.0 as the version to work with. 4.0 - ultimately, XML is not very good at doing relationships. Resource Definition Framework (RDF) handles relationships. RDF: define, structure, type, and validate standard-global-domain relationship. Schemas can't validate relationships. Mark Kindl continued the presentation: Design Principles and Considerations 1. Reference architecture and namespaces for a standard Justice XML DD Schema (JXDDS) specification. 2. Object-oriented data model, named types, extensions. 3. ISO Standard 11179 - Specification & Standardization of Data Elements 4. Metadata for content, registry support, and infrastructure 5. Value constraints: codes/ enumerations, special semantics 6. Primary(IS-A, HAS-A) and secondary (domain) relationships 7. Data requirements and the data dictionary database design 8. Functional requirements: use cases 9. Use applicable standards 10. XML schema version control 11. Business context components and containers 12. Provide migration paths for evolution to new technologies. Points 1-6 led up to what it took to design the model database, much more sophisticated than RDD. Implements object oriented database in an Access program. Schema Reference Architecture Using namespaces--define a scope of vocabulary. xmlns: Justice. Each document would have a namespace reference to it. Namespace has three logical parts: * Named Entity Types (Class Hierarchy) * Support Types (Data Types that do not fit into the class hierarchy) * Element and Relationship Names (Standard Tag Names) --these carry the semantic meanings. Document types would import the schema and use the element names and type definitions. Then one can choose standard instances or define local extensions as a basis for local instances, ensuring you'll be compatible among yourselves in the local environment. Local can't be exchanged globally with other localities (except with bi-local agreement). Only extensions would not be recognized by other systems. Key to remember is: In XML there are two components, Elements and Types. We are OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 9 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes creating names for both of them, so there will be standard names for each. Types carry structure, the parts of a particular object. The Elements carry semantic meaning. (For example, there is a Type "Judicial Officer" from which there would be element names like "Judge," "Attorney," etc. and these element names are what go into the instances -you see only Element names there, not the type names. Object Model Example (the "Class Hierarchy") Types have elements and types are derived from other types. There is only one Super Type from which all other Types are derived. SuperType has associated MetaData. High Value Objects are large generic entities like Organization Type, Location Type, Conveyance, and Person. The object model provides inheritance of properties. This means that the SuperType's metadata is carried by all of the types derived from it. Under PersonType he shows SubjectType (Arrest, CautionaryInfo), and JudicialOfficerType (BarID, BarIssuedate). Each of those subtypes also inherits the Name, etc., elements from the types above, as well as the metadata of the SuperType. There are two camps: Conceptual (with its set of terms) and the XML Schema Implementation side. Concept: classes, objects, properties of objects, types of objects, etc. They translate to implementations on the XML Schema side. But the two components on the XML Schema side are Types and Elements (sometimes Attributes). These translate on the conceptual side to classes and properties. Person Object Subclasses Types (NOT Elements) <- watch out for the difference. SuperType Person Type Subclasses under it Includes driver information, since that is usually kept on all persons (e.g., Drivers license number) Participant Type jurors witnesses ordinary citizen involved in justice system because of need to participate, not as an official or subject, because not under investigation. SubjectType: defendant, inmate, etc. (the largest subclass of all of this) OfficialType EnforcementOfficer JudicialOfficer The XSTF started with >35000 types from the source data, and pared it down to approximately 14000. In courts, organizations can be defendants or complainants in cases. Corporate entities, estates, etc., can be parties to cases. They haven't designed it yet, but expect there will OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 10 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes be an Organization Type but also a PropertyType (real property, intellectual property, etc.). However, Court Filing came up with Actor. They're then looking into ActorType under the SuperType. There is no inheritance among OrganizationType, ActorType, PersonType, PropertyType -- they don't inherit from one another. Enumerations --the most important thing in a code is the literal, so one conveys the reality regardless of what is in the code table one is referencing. --thus, one embellishes the code (needed by systems to process) by passing along the literal --these are attributes, so there aren't many restrictions Problem: Can't validate it. Can't prove through the XML Schema that the c ode claimed is accurate. Better Method of Implementing External Enumerations (Codes) Bring the schema for, e.g., NCIC, in through an XML Namespace reference. Then, from within the instant schema, one has the literal and from the namespace reference, one can get validation of the code. This, of course, requires that the NCIC codes be in a namespace – and have a schema. Mark estimates there are many supplements to the NCIC codes. If the states create their own namespaces for their NCIC equivalents, then they can use their own codes and still get validation. This increases the importance of a registry and of the need for the states to register their codes. You don't have to use the codes, you could use the text/literal. Robin said that the most difficult thing justice deals with is charge/ordinance codes, of which there are probably tens of thousands, including municipal courts. Answer: If the Justice Standards Registry Program provides the guidance, rules, principles to build them, then each code set could be registered, making it theoretically possible for everyone to have access to those codes and give them the ability to recognize where they came from. John Aerts said there is an application published that converts local charges into the 3digit NCIC charge codes. NLETS and NCIC submit codes to each State's department of justice, which then can modify its own. In California, they publish their codes on CD throughout the state. State codes are almost always more specific than the federal. Primary & Secondary Relationships Primary Relationships in Data Objects -- Object class hierarchy built from "is-a" and "has-a" primary relationships. The "has-a" relationships are when you hang the properties off of the types. Containers --standards documents, e.g., rap sheet, warrant, that use the objects and create local relationships by how they organize the objects. Secondary Relationships OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 11 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes being defined to eliminate ambiguity: * Owns * Viewed * Son of * Sold --explicitly defined, globally understood Conceptual Data Model Represented by JDD Database Property -- every one in the Dictionary has a Subject Type and an ObjectType. Why distinguish between Primary and Secondary relationships? Defined separately so there are two distinct types of relationships. XML Schema - concept: Type Property XML instance- reality: Instance of type (element names) Value of property This emulates RDF types of relationships, Rich Himes observed. Entity-Relationship Diagram of Justice Data Dictionary Database Entirely based on properties (named elements) and types (named types), implementing object-oriented in Access (which is relational). Data Requirement Sources (now in the source tables). 18 sources listed. There’s a mapping to every source data element coming out of those sources -- some 15,000 elements. Now, they are capable of mapping each of those "data requirements" back to their respective property or type. So far, they have mapped nearly 7% of the elements. For just one example, they were provided with 156 pages of Court elements. (Robin and Greg Arnold worked through these.) The database is not yet available on the Web, but GTRI plans to post it there so the domain experts can work with it. From this will be produced an XML Schema automatically – it doesn’t have to be written. Methodology: GTRI engineers have gone through all of the elements from the source related, e.g., to Organization, eliminated obvious duplicates, then not-so-obvious duplicates, then settled on a term and definition. Ultimately, the result of this analysis goes to the XSTF for review and decisions. Applicable Standards and References: ISO 11179 XML.gov UN/CEFACT1.85 FBI Fingerprint Spec v 7 ANSI/NIST Data Format for Fingerprint, Facial & SMT OASIS, XML Common Biometrics Format Committee OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 12 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes
What is the status and schedule for the release of the JXDD 3.0? They originally proposed 180 day deadline. Person object is completed. On the 14th and 15th of November the XSFT gets together in Atlanta to work on Organization, Location, Weapon, and make progress on others. On December 16th, the next Global meeting, they'll have an Emerging Technologies Committee meeting -- the first time for that group to see what we've seen today. Greg Arnold said the 180 days is based on the GTRI contract period. Diane explained the CFTC is reviewing a draft DTD for Court Document and plans for a 2.0 for Court Filing for next year sometime. She said that the Administrative Office of US Courts is a group with which she interacts. Some federal courts are implementing Legal XML Court Filing in some ways. (Otherwise, they are moving toward standardizing on PDF.) John Greacen said we now have Court Filing 1.1, which incorporated the RDD, also Court Document and Query and Response coming along. We are not going to have Court Policy ready, however. For the kinds of implementations we have now, you don't need Court Policy for automatically finding out the requirements of any court. That would be part of the 2.0 series. That will try to put these pieces together in a better way, tightly integrating Court Filing, Document, and Query/Response. It will reference the object oriented Schema and have a sophisticated messaging capability. He observed that California is contracting for their own electronic court filing project. PowerPoint is at the GTRI Web site. The address is to the Schemas, several versions. Back off to the "edu" which is the front page from which you can find their presentations. Note that the address begins with the user id "justicexml" and the password "justicegtri. " Don't pass these documents around so people would see them out of context. Some of them need to be explained, in order to be understood. The 3.0 Schema and product is at a different location. Robin recommends there be a narrative on the site explaining the approach and philosophical assumptions and processes. Dave Roberts said he sees the Data Dictionary as a central document around which the specific documents we're working with will be built and very tightly coupled. Diane wondered whether that means this group has bought in to the object-oriented approach. Dave said this group had come to this conclusion earlier, as a Legal XML Work Group. Motion made on whether the group expresses its support for the Data Dictionary Schema effort that Global/GTRI have under way and that that will be the basis for specifications we will develop in this TC. Peer review of their work has been by Infrastructure Work Group and others. How does the use of this type of model and structure compare with what is being done in other areas, such as health care? They have learned that a lot of people are coming to them on this, seeing them as ahead of things. The other data dictionaries are more "primitive" than this model. Diane confirmed she's been at meetings such as NIST, with health care participants present, and they know their namespace is there, but they are not far along the path. She mentioned the "E-Gov" legislation that may be passed from Congress after they reconvene. It calls for "markup" and one version for "XML" particularly. EPA is out there a lot with XML. There have been meetings with XML.gov OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 13 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes and the CIO Council and it seems that this data dictionary project is way out ahead. Motion unanimously passed by voice vote. John Greacen mentioned that there is a joint committee on OASIS on Security that is coordinating security specifications throughout OASIS. If there is anyone from this group who would like to be appointed to this committee, that would be very appropriate. We need someone to help us be aware of what's going on elsewhere in OASIS and to make sure that the larger security thinking would include issues that are of concern to us. Jim Cabral, MTG, volunteered to serve as liaison with the OASIS Security TC. John Aerts wondered whether we should be looking at the federal records standard for records, 5015.2. This relates to issues of archiving and dealing with records.
Subcommittee reports on the status of development, testing, implementation and vetting of XML schema Protection Order - John Greacen There is an effort to prototype an Order of Protection using the Court Document 1.1 standard. Dr. Lawrence Leff is organizing some of his students to do this prototype. They have a draft statement of work that will be posted. This will be determining how to do an Order of Protection using the Court Document 1.1 "standard" - using software that would extract data from the XML for importation into the NCIC database. They hope to have forms from 3 states. They'll also use an application of Dr. Leff's using AI to advise petitioners about requesting a Protection Order. John Greacen gave an overview of the Court Document spec and how it has placeholders for specific data element groups, but was designed primarily for free-form text. San Diego is using Infotech 2.1 to emit XML documents. John said there were many people interested in the DV topic who are not OASIS members (e.g., from Pennsylvania). John will have a list to include them. Each of these working groups should get a Statement of Work together and they could use that to help recruit participants from the broader community. John said he wants to broaden this to include the application for the Order as well as the Order. Roger Winters may be interested in helping with this. The application will be based on a 1.1 spec in lower Camel case -- however, San Diego is doing Upper Camel case in the process. Diane said the groups should begin with the Statement of Work and the Requirements Definition. Roger suggested creating a special instance of Court Document, making it compliant
OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 14 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes with ISO 11179 and the other applicable federal standards (UpperCamel, etc.), rather than make it an implementation of Court Document 1.1. This would still test whether Court Document 1.1 is conducive for forms based documents like those in DV. Will need to get the "translator" from GTRI to modify the DTD from lowerCamel to UpperCamel. John Aerts said he wouldn't do anything that wasn't compliant with ISO 11179 requirements. The existing application in San Diego follows the 2.1 standards already. Why would the IJTC want to pursue work product that is non-compliant with federal standards for data exchange? John said the CFTC doesn't hold the view yet that DTD wasn't okay to use even though not 11179 compliant or based on the new dictionary. Court Filing 1.1 is lowerCamel case because that was the structure of the 1.0 dictionary (the RDD). The decision was made to avoid going back and redoing CF 1.1 to include AAMVA or UpperCamel case. John said he'd withdraw the proposal from this TC and let the Court Filing TC deal with that, focusing here instead on the Requirements. Those interested in participating in the Court Filing prototyping of DV would be welcome to do so. Greg Arnold said that in GA some magistrate courts bought a syst em from a vendor that is essentially a fax filing service that charges $15 for a filing! This is a problem for them. Arrest Warrant – Gerry Coleman Catherine provided Gerry Coleman’s report. Gerry is working on a Web services approach. As Wisconsin has implemented the transmission of the Rap Sheet through Web services, they've learned some lessons about that schema. One of the lessons is the need for a separate envelope. They think the lengthy introduction part of the Rap Sheet needs to be pulled out with, perhaps, specific envelopes created for NCIC, FBI, etc. The Rap Sheet committee is waiting on 3.0 of the Data Dictionary. Gerry and Catherine are participating in a XML technology conference coming up in two weeks in Atlanta, which will include two presentations on web services and the AISLES project for Rap Sheet transmissions. The Arrest Warrant schema has been completed for some time, in Version 1.0 of the Data Dictionary. Gerry has chosen not to reconcile to Version 2.1, but is waiting for Version 3.0 to be released. Sentencing Order – Catherine Plummer Catherine said that she has been a committee of one, working on the Sentencing Order schema, which was completed last year in Version 1.0. She is waiting for 3.0, and will not reconcile to 2.1. She has not created a style sheet, and has no current prospect of implementing in New Mexico, as originally planned. She is looking for others to be involved. In the meantime she will drop back and focus on the Requirements Definition. Tom Clarke volunteered to serve on this committee. Uniform Arrest/Incident Report – John Aerts The schema is based on an activity based system in LA County, so it includes more elements than most jurisdictions would find to be necessary. They have received a schema from Advanced Technology Systems, (NLETS/AISLES contractor), and a Homeland Security briefing. This helps explain why they are looking at an envelope -- a OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 15 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes 64K limit on messages due to infrastructure limits. They would like more participants in the arrest/incident report. John is trying to get information from TRW on their arrestbased process that has been widely implemented. New Dawn Technologies built an arrest report back in 2001 with a lot of documentation. He said they would like to get some more participation from those who have been active in this area. Jeff Langford and others promised to help him with contacts from the vendor community working in this area. Dave Roberts said there is a committee working on functional standards for law enforcement and XML. The work is funded by BJA and is a joint collaboration between the International Association of Chief of Police (IACP), National Sheriffs Association (NSA), National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) and Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). They have created a Law Enforcement Information Technology Standards Council (LEITSC), with representatives of each of the above four organizations. That reference will be shared with John Aerts. Additional information regarding the project can be found at: http://www.iacptechnology.org/LEITSC/LEITSCIndex.htm The elements currently being used in the report are the same as are being used in AZ, CT, FL, MN, and two other states. The InfoTech model is being fully supported by NIJ. They are moving forward as a partner with TRW on the XML standard. Advanced Technology Systems (ATS) is also building a system, but based on strict guidelines given to them, not following standard. Currently, CA is doing a pilot project with Shasta County on an arrest disposition report with XML. LA County is doing a project with EDI transfers. They are supposed to meet in December to talk about doing an XML transfer. John Ruegg - Prosecutor/Charging Document Version 1.1 of Court Filing was used in LA County's comp laint and information process for a model. They also used Court Document. Court Filing uses more of the data you would need to transmit information and addresses the inter-agency exchange of information between agencies and courts because it has all the elements to tell you what is being pled, who the attorneys are, and includes the document as an object. Similar to the status of others, he would like to bring in some vendor support once we have version 3.0 and take the DA's current production and information complaint out so they can do some vetting on something that is implemented and then build on that. They would build out from what they do internally. He said that the California AOC activity now concerns him. He sees this as the driver, the content, around which vendors can build their code, etc. He is not looking for vendors to show what they are doing with XML so much as to find out what the standard content is that all of us are exchanging. He thinks there is good potential for exchanging documents with Orange and Riverside Counties. Could we have a target date for the committees to have a Statement of Work? John Aerts suggested that people tend to be on holiday between November 15 and January 4. We will target the end of the year. Roger offered to set up these in the appropriate template if they would forward them to me when ready. John Wandelt said that they don't have Protection Order elements in the requirements database. GTRI wants to verify the version numbers, and needs definitions (plain text) OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 16 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
OASIS Integrated Justice TC 021029 Meeting Minutes for data elements, which the IJTC members should provide. They can then send out to the committee chairs a report on what percentage of their document is mapped. He said it is critical for GTRI to get these definitions. Where there were schemas available, GTRI extracted the elements, type names, and definitions if they were there. They could use a data dictionary, particularly if in Excel or Access. Many of the data dictionaries are in Word, Text, etc., from which it is "almost impossible" to extract the definitions. Lacking that, if we can give them a prepared spreadsheet with definitions, that would help them. Dave Roberts said SEARCH will do outreach to their constituents to ask for help in identifying data definitions that now exist.
Discussion of next steps Schedule for Conference Calls and Face-To-Face Meetings Week of January 6 (follows 12/16 meeting of Infrastructure Standards Working Group) may be the next face-to-face. John pointed out the Court Filing TC has a conference call January 7. Then, 6 weeks later, a conference call, then another quarterly face-to-face, etc. Dave and Catherine will develop proposals for dates and locations and post to the website and distribute to members of the TC.
Messaging Protocol Tom Clarke said that SOAP and XML Messaging both use an envelope and a payload. He wanted people to know that they're thinking about this at the Global level as an architecture matter. (ebXML includes SOAP.) The Global XML group has met on a number of issues similar to what we are doing. Dave will try to keep this group informed. See www.it.ojp.gov to track developments – visit the site on a fairly regular basis. Dave will share Dr. Leff's report on the ebXML project with this group - posted to Court Filing already once before. Roger will modify and issue revised procedures document. Will draft paper on leadership and how to organize and govern the group. Perhaps this could be acted on in January. The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. PST.
OASIS Integrated Justice TC – Minutes Page 17 of 17
Last Modified: Created by:
2002-10-30 Catherine Plummer
