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: "Scott Came" <>
To: 
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT)






John and TC, a quick clarification...

My position with respect to changing GJXDM element and type
definitions is that an argument **could be** made that such an approach leads to non-conformant schemas.� I don't know
specifically whether any XSTF members **will** make such an argument.

Further, I think that altering GJXDM
definitions raises a much more serious conformance question than the prohibition of further extensions of the Blue
message schemas.� If the TC is concerned about the latter, it should probably be more concerned about the former.

I believe the range of definitional changes that you can make to a type or element without changing the
semantics is fairly small.� It is certainly possible to change definitions in a way that maintains consistency with
the intent of the original definitions, especially if we have the participation of people who were involved in the
writing of the originals.� However, I think we should recognize that this is a slippery slope:� does the practice of
changing GJXDM definitions to suit the needs of a particular exchange or schema design scale?� Would we advocate that
anyone designing a GJXDM schema change the definitions in a way consistent with their interpretation of the intent of
the element?� I think in general an argument could be made that this hinders interoperability.

I am not
opposed to the practical approach of:� (a) changing the definitions as John suggests below, (b) documenting very
clearly where we have done so, and (c) submitting our altered definitions to XSTF for consideration in a future
version of GJXDM.� We can move forward assuming that XSTF will accept our altered definitions, given the level of
court semantic expertise on this TC.� In the worst case, if any of the definitional changes are rejected at XSTF, we
can fallback on an approach of defining Blue-specific elements in our extension schemas later.

Thanks.
--Scott

> 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
LexisNexis Meeting Place 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
>
> 1.	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.
>
>
2.	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
> Seattle for two days on June 2 and 3 to prepare a document for review
by the
> TC face to face meeting in Atlanta on June 6 to 8.  I have sought LegalXML
> Member Section
funding to support the travel costs for the three team
> members not from Seattle.  I will ask the TC to
ratify this process.
>
> Specific Issues concerning the Message Types
>
> 3.	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.
>
> 4.	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 Durham comment to line 132.
>
> 5.	Can queries be addressed to MDEs as well as to
courts?  See Durham
> comment to line 168.
>
> 6.	Why include a Policy Reference URI in
response messages?  Do we need
> a separate Get Policy Query?  See Durham comment to line 175.
>
> 7.	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.
>
> 8.	What is returned in the
response to a Get Filing List query?  See
> Durham comment to line 192 and 201.
>
> 9.	In New
Orleans 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 Durham comments to line 209.
>
> 10.	What is returned in the response to the Get Case List query?
 See
> Durham comments to line 221.
>
> 11.	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.
>
> 12.	Do we need to specify additional messages
for
>
> a.	Transmitting service information, including the documents to be
> served, to the
Service MDE and
> b.	Transmitting information from the Service MDE to the court to
> indicate that
service has been completed?
>
> See last Greacen comment to line 248
>
> 13.	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 78 Box 23
> Regina, New
Mexico 87046
> 505-289-2164
> 505-289-2163 (fax)
> 505-780-1450 (cell)
>

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to
this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php













[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]