Next in thread →
Next in month →
RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call
MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
legalxml-courtfiling message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call
From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <>
To: "''" <>, Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:39:38 -0400
I withdraw my comments at 150 and 159 in
favor of the clarifications of the Shane requested.
Suggestion only -- In the future, you may
want to consider adding a column for cardinality within message type
definitions. This timing is often more clear and advantageous than defining
and reviewing at the time of schema creation.
Otherwise, I concur with the other
comments and recommended actions by the subcommittee. Well done!
Regards,
Don
Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781
From: John M. Greacen
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:39
AM
To: Electronic Court Filing
Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call
We will hold an hour and a half teleconference from 1:00 pm
to 2:30 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 to discuss the Court Filing Blue message
types.
Remember that we are using the application to
support this meeting. Please log onto that site, following Don’s
instructions, and dial into the conference call as well.
If we have additional time, we will address the architecture
of the Court Filing Blue message envelope structure (see minutes of May 17th
conference call). I do not believe the either the DSS Entity Seal nor the
extendability of the Court Filing Blue schema(s) is ripe for discussionA
detailed agenda will be distributed prior to the meeting.
The details for next Tuesday’s call are set forth
below.
Leader's Name: John Greacen
Day/Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Time of call: 1:00 to 2:30
pm Eastern time
Conference Dial-in:
512-225-3050
Conference Guest Code:
84759#
Number of lines needed:
Anticipated Total = 40
Duration of the call: 1 Hour
Leader's Phone Number:
505-780-1450
Please review the attached document from the subcommittee to
review the comments on the Court Filing Blue Message Types. Be prepared; it is
a long document – roughly 25 pages when printed. Please find time if
possible to review it before the teleconference. The subcommittee report
recommends TC action on each comment, including the items listed below for
discussion by the full TC. Any member may ask that any of the
subcommittee’s recommendations be set for discussion by the full TC on
this or a future teleconference.
Proposed agenda
Suggested resolution of the
issues concerning Court Filing Blue, UBL and GJXDM semantics. We have
discovered what others have found in trying to use the GJXDM as written:
the element definitions are poorly and often incorrectly worded from a
legal standpoint. GTRI has stated that if any user changes any of the
definitions, they should define a new element in their own namespace. The
only entity with the authority to change an element definition is the
XSTF. We cannot wait for the XSTF to change the definitions of all the
elements we find inartfully worded for our purposes. The subcommittee
suggests that we create our own definitions applicable in our domain for
GJXDM elements when the semantic content of the element remains the
same as in the GJXDM, while submitting our proposed redefinitions for
approval by the XSTF. A couple of examples suffice – Case
Initiating Party Person, Case Initiating Party Organization, and Case
Initiating Party Property are all defined exactly the same. The
definition of Case Initiating Party Person states that the initiator of a
criminal case is the victim; in a court it is almost always the State. We
can correct the definitional problems for applying these elements in our
context – with complete confidence that we are using the elements as
intended by the GJXDM. Scott Came points out that some members of the
XSTF will consider our specification non-compliant with the GJXDM if we
follow this course.
Proposed domain specialist UML
working session to develop a strawman schema(s) – Tom Clarke and I
recommend that we convene a small group of domain experts together with
two GJXDM-knowledgeable technical experts to go through the process
followed by the Integrated Justice Technical Committee for developing
GJXDM reference documents. We have asked Terrie Bousquin, Robin Gibson,
Roger Winters and me to meet with Scott Came and Jim Cabral in for two days on June 2 and 3 to prepare a
document for review by the TC face to face meeting in on June 6 to 8. I have sought
LegalXML Member Section funding to support the travel costs for the three
team members not from .
I will ask the TC to ratify this process.
Specific Issues concerning the Message
Types
How do we handle
“interested persons” -- non-parties who become related to a
case? Do we need to define a new party type (or the full range of Person,
Organization, and Property types) to refer to these “non-party
parties?” See Greacen comment to line 130.
Whether Court Filing Blue will
support the transmission of information on changes to parties and
attorneys in XML or require that these by handled traditionally, such as
by motions for withdrawal or substitution of counsel. See comment to
line 132.
Can queries be addressed to
MDEs as well as to courts? See
comment to line 168.
Why include a Policy Reference
URI in response messages? Do we need a separate Get Policy Query? See comment to
line 175.
We need to clarify the
distinction between Get Filing Status and Get Filing. What is returned in
the response to each? Is the filing status returned in Get Filing? If
so, why have a Get Filing Status query? Are the documents and attachments
returned in Get Filing? If not, why isn’t Get Filing Status
sufficient by itself? See comments to lines 181 through 196.
What is returned in the
response to a Get Filing List query? See comment to line 192 and 201.
In we agreed that the Get Case
query should support limitations of the data to be returned from the
court’s docket or register of actions. Shane Durham asks whether an
xpath statement is a reasonable way to do that and suggests instead that
we define a standard set of limited queries, including selection criteria
for getting cases, getting participants in cases and getting docket or
register of action information. Can we accomplish this within the time
available for releasing Court Filing Blue? See comments to line 209.
What is returned in the
response to the Get Case List query? See comments to line 221.
In eService, how do we handle
the distinction between service on attorneys for parties and service on
the parties themselves if they do not have attorneys? See second Greacen
comment to line 248.
Do we need to specify
additional messages for
Transmitting service
information, including the documents to be served, to the Service MDE and
Transmitting information from
the Service MDE to the court to indicate that service has been completed?
See last Greacen comment to line 248
The architecture of the Court
Filing Blue message envelope structure (see minutes of May 17th
conference call) – Scott Came and Eric Tingom
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC
HCR
505-289-2164
505-289-2163 (fax)
505-780-1450 (cell)
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Next in thread →
Next in month →