Dwight,
The US Department of Justice has a Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative addresses most, if not all, of the concerns you have presented. There is a lot of information on their website (http://it.ojp.gov/index.jsp), including a Global Justice XML Data Model.
Hope this helps,
--Tanya
Tanya L. Marshall, MLS
Assistant State Archivist
Vermont State Archives
26 Terrace, Redstone Building
Montpelier, VT 05609-1101
(tel.) 802-828-0405
(fax) 802-828-1135
(e-mail) [log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Records Management Program [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of WALLIS Dwight D [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 6:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Metadata Schemes or Common Taxonomies for Public Law Enforcement and Judicial Functions
Recently, our District Attorney's Office has embarked on a major effort
to convert to imaging. Simultaneously, there is a high level effort
underway to support electronic systems for the public legal community as
a whole in Multnomah County. Both of these efforts are exciting for me,
as I have long supported a focus in this particular area as offering
enormous potential for cost savings and improved public service, due to
the intense work flow demands, and an excessive amount of duplication in
records between the various jurisdictions (much of which we store).
As this effort gets underway, one of the concerns I have raised relates
to the development of common metadata schemes and/or taxonomies, to
ensure that - as each individual entity implements their solution - some
degree of interoperability is possible. My fear is that, without such an
effort, each jurisdiction will develop their own solution based on their
own set of information technology standards and budgetary constraints,
thereby undermining the ability of these various systems ultimately to
talk to one another without significant additional expenditure. I also
see a lack of common standards as limiting our ability to effectively
apply retention and other public records requirements to these systems.
In my opinion, both the potential for cross jurisdictional
interoperability, and the ability to apply effective records keeping
controls will contribute greatly to making these systems pay off in the
long term. Right now, I fear much of the focus is on achieving short
term "paperless" status, without much thought for long term implications
and opportunities. It strikes me that among the first things we all
should be addressing is a common method of organizing our information so
that we can build these standards into our business processes from the
beginning, not after the fact.
I've done some research on the web, but haven't encountered a "standard"
metadata design or taxonomy for the legal profession (unlike other
professions, such as the medical profession). I've encountered some
standards for non-US countries (primarily Commonwealth countries), which
I fear may not have much applicability to our situation. And while I am
aware of techniques to develop such systems, having a ready made model
at least as a starting point would be very helpful.
Is anyone aware of any metadata schemes and/or taxonomy "standards"
relating to local/state public legal functions in the United States?
Even examples from other counties or states or the legal profession in
general would be helpful. And standards related to District Attorney's
Offices would be wonderful!
Dwight Wallis, CRM
Records Administrator
Multnomah County Fleet, Records, Electronics, Distribution and Stores
(FREDS)
1620 S.E. 190th Avenue
Portland, OR 97233
Phone: (503)988-3741
Fax: (503)988-3754
[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]
|
