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] Record Docketing and Callbacks
From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <>
To: "'Cabral, James E.'" <>, Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:17:34 -0400
Please see below…
Regards,
Don
Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781
From: Cabral, James E.
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005
1:23 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing
Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Record Docketing and Callbacks
Everyone,
Tom Clarke and Scott Came are currently
working on defining the domain models and GJXDM mappings for the Record
Docketing and callbacks. In the attached email discussion of the content
of each message, I identified two questions for the TC. I referenced the
second issue in the "Proposed Service Model for ECF 3.0" document
because it relates to the service model . But the first issue is a possible
simplification of all the callbacks that I do not recall we have decided as a
TC.
Again, please direct your comments to the
entire TC so that we may resolve these issues as soon as possible.
thanks,
Jim
Cabral
James E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com
The
information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it
is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any computer.
From: Cabral,
James E.
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 3:28
PM
To: ''
Cc: Tom Clarke;
Subject: RE: Record Docketing and
Callbacks
Scott,
Here's what I recall, in sequential order:
1. The ReviewFiling synchronous callback
includes
- the time the
filing was received by the Filing Review MDE
- the court-assigned
case number
- any error messages
2. The RecordDocketing includes
- all the metadata
and attached documents in the ReviewFiling message that is accepted
by the clerk, as edited by the clerk
- the court-assigned case
number
- the payment receipt
3. The RecordDocketing synchronous
callback includes
- the time it was
received by the Court Record System
- any error messages
4. The RecordDocketing asynchronous
callback includes
- all the
metadata and attached documents in the RecordDocketing message, as modified by
the Court Record System
- the document
identifiers for each document filed into the Court Record System
- any error messages
5. The ReviewFiling asynchronous callback
includes
- all the
metadata and attached documents in the RecordDocketing message, as edited by
the Court Record System
- the court-assigned
case number
- the disposition
(accepted/rejected) of each document in the original ReviewFiling message
- the document
identifiers for each document filed into the Court Record System
- the payment receipt
(if the court processes payments)
- a place for error
codes
I am unclear on a couple things:
1. One simplification would be to remove
the metadata and documents from the callbacks. In that case, it seems to
me that we would still need to include a way to indicate to the filer what
information the clerk or Court Record System changed. Or should
we just say that it their responsibility to download the documents and check them
for changes?[Bergeron] I
am not sure that just returning the information is far more straightforward
than attempting to identify all the changed objects in all the changed values
within the interaction. Further, requiring the filing assembly process
and its attendant human to return to the court filing application would be a
disincentive to its use. Therefore, I would argue for returning
everything.
2. Another question I have is how this all
relates to service. Since the service recipients receive the filing
concurrently with the court, do they need to also receive notification of the
changes the clerk or Court Record System make? [Bergeron] I
would think so. And should the service recipients receive the
document identifiers for each document? [Bergeron] in the same way as the
filer yes. Currently, we do not have a mechanism designed to support
that. [Bergeron] looks
like we need one
That's all I can remember. I
probably missed some but it should be a good start for your strawman.
jim
From: Scott
Came [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 12:04
PM
To: Cabral, James E.
Cc: Tom Clarke;
Subject: Record Docketing and
Callbacks
Jim, do you have an
understanding of existing consensus regarding what should go into the callbacks
and Record Docketing message structure?
Tom and I would like to put a strawman forward to the list on this. Can
you help us build it? My recollection is that we think we need only a few
data items more than what's in Review Filing...
Thanks.
--Scott
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
