Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Second unresolved agenda item

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] Second unresolved agenda item

From: "Dallas Powell" <>

To: <>,"Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <>

Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:19:22 -0600

Scott,

 

You are correct we do not have a functional 
requirement that represents what I am saying.  The current requirements 
only deal with the payload information and not the requirements at the 
application level.  In the New Orleans meeting we stated several times that 
the requirements are not complete and we will find more.  Here is my 
proposal for an application level functional requirement: 

 

A Clerk Review MDE must be able to support 
more than one CMS, and each CMS may have a different court policy and 
extensions.  This condition could easily occur when a single state 
wide Clerk Review MDE supports multiple court locations with different CMS 
systems.  Some courts will need different extensions, and some will have 
different policies and we cannot force them to be the same just because they are 
going through the same Clerk Review MDE.

 

Some of the discussion from our current 
requirements have debated whether to create a method of extending the basic 
LegalXML Blue schema to allow for court specific extensions or whether we 
force the court specific extensions to exist in a separate XML document 
instance. The application requirement I just proposed above relates to this 
issue.

 

If we take the position of separating the basic 
LegalXML Blue schema from court specific extensions then the LegalXML TC 
has better control over the versioning of the Blue schema 
and this may well impact the ability to test or certify some level 
of interoperability.  If we allow courts to extend the basic Blue 
schema my reaction is that the control over the versions will be much more 
difficult to manage and testing of interoperability is more 
complicated.

 

When we send a Filing Review Message to a Clerk 
Review MDE, we better know what version of Blue it conforms to, and I anticipate 
we will have to support more than one version after a while, so perhaps that is 
another functional requirement.  In addition, I anticipate the court policy 
versions will change more quickly than the Blue Schema and the separation 
simplifies the level of testing at least for the Blue schema.   I 
suggest that the SOAP Header area is where all this occurs. 

 

 

Dallas