[legalxml-courtfiling-cms-api] FW: QR Spec: Comments

For 
discussion on the list and in our next ear-to-ear meeting.  We have 
previously distributed Shane Durham's comments.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: T J Smith 
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:38 
PM
To: Moira Rowley
Subject: QR Spec: 
Comments

Here are my 
remaining comments re: the draft Q&R spec. Quoted material is from the spec 
so as to provide context. Italicized stuff is my comment. In the event it looks 
like garbage (format, not intellectual content of course) I've attached a 
version in Word.

 

 

1.       
1.2 Document 
Description: "This 
document includes a DTD that is to be used to validate the syntax of XML 
documents used to retrieve information from a court." 
This document also includes Policy XML DTDs. Confused me for a bit. 

 

2.    3 Element 
Specification:

b.      
3.1.1 Query Name: Do we need version control to handle 
evolution of Q&R 
DTDs?

c.      
3.1.3 Privilege:  "If 
a privilege level is submitted with the query, the court is free to ignore 
it."
No - in our model the court must be guiven the filer's privilege level to help decide if it 
should honor the query. Need to accomodate both 
models.

d.      
3.1.4.1 Parameter: "Wherever possible, the 
parameterName should coincide 
with the established elements and attributes of the LegalXML data dictionary and 
contain the same information." 

Where's that 
dictionary?

3.       
3.2 Response: Don't we need a way to associate a response 
to a given query?

4.   3.3.1. 
getActorRole: "The 
getActorRole query is used to retrieve the role of an actor involved in the 
case, e.g., a party or an attorney, and that actor's privilege level to view case 
information."
This presupposes the 
court modifies its CMS to track filers & 
privileges; in CA, we wish to 
require EFSPs to perform that function. Same 
issue as 3.1.3.

5.    3.3.7. 
getCourtPolicy: "The getCourtPolicy query is used to retrieve 
the court's Court Policy XML document." 

No - thought we'd agreed at 
one point that access to Court Policy XML should be outside the API. The API 
talks to the CMS, and the CMS knows nothing about Policy XML.

6.    Missing 
Queries?   

a.      
Filer registration 
functions missing: RegisterNewActor; 
InactivateActor.

b.      
See table below. 

 

 

  
  

    
      
QR 
      Draft Standard 2-10-2002

    
      
QR 
      Draft Standard 7-1-2002

    
      
CMS 
      API 

  

    
      
Get actor status 
      (actorStatus)

    
      
GetActorRole?

    
      
GetActorStatus

  

    
      
Get associated case list 
      for a particular actor (associatedCases).

    
      
GetAssociatedCases

    
      
GetCasesForActor

  

    
      
Get case calendar 
      (caseCalendar).

    
      
getCaseCalendar

    
      
GetCalendarForCase

  

    
      
Get a specific case 
      document, with or without any attachments 
      (caseDocument).

    
      
getCaseDocument

    
      
GetDocument

      
 

  

    
      
Get case history 
      (caseHistory). 

    
      
getCaseHistory

    
      
GetCaseHistory

  

    
      
Get case information 
      (caseInformation).

    
      
getCaseInformation

    
      
GetCaseInformation

  

    
      
Get court policy 
      (courtPolicy).

    
      
getCourtPolicy

    
      
 

  

    
      
 

    
      
 

    
      
GetAttorneyForParty

  

    
      
 

    
      
 

    
      
GetDocumentListForCase

  

    
      
 

    
      
 

    
      
GetMatters-ActionsOfCase

  

    
      
 

    
      
 

    
      
GetFilingFee

  

    
      
 

    
      
 

    
      
RegisterNewActor

  

    
      
 

    
      
 

    
      
InactivateActor

 

 

Tom Smith

IT\Decision/CEFTS Program, CA 
AOC



650.591.1795 
(Ofc)

650.346.7689 
(Mobile)

650.591.1425 
(Fax)

 

Attachment:
Comments to Q&R Draft of 2002-07-01.doc

Description: MS-Word document