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: "Winters, Roger" <>
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:35:41 -0700
I think we go out of scope if we look to report what the "Court
Records System" does with documents once they have been e-filed and
served. It seems to me that the e-filed document is uniquely identified when submitted
- by the case into which filed, the document title, the filename (e.g.,
ORDER.PDF), and other metadata it has when submitted for review (and
processing). The key data the e-filer and others need at that point are 1) filing
identification information (link to document plus metadata), 2) date/time
received and/or officially filed (which can be different dates/times), and 3)
any error messages.
Once the clerk gets a document that has been e-filed (it's
in the door, in the clerk's custody now), the clerk will do things with
the filing, may date/time stamp it, may assign it a sequence number within the
case file, may enter it on an index of "today's filings," etc.
This adds index information and metadata that might be needed to locate the
e-filed item in the "Court Records System." However, there is no
reason the data added from putting a filing into the Court Records System
should be reported back. Come to the court or the clerk's office when you
want to examine the record as it is within that Court Records System -
learn then what index entries were given to the document, e.g., unique
identification codes, sequence number assigned in the file folder, name of the
clerk who processed it, date/time of the money receipt issued, etc. - access
that information when it's needed. (Put another way, you only need to get
back the same information the bicycle messenger would have brought you if you
had filed a paper - except for the e-service information, which is
handled a little differently. The messenger isn't hanging around until
the document is fully processed into the "Court Records System" so information
about that can be brought back to the filer's office.)
I hope this is helpful.
Roger
Roger Winters
King County
Department of
Judicial Administration
Continuing Legal
Education (CLE) Coordinator
and
Programs and
Projects Manager
516 Third Avenue, E-609
MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F:
(206) 296-0906
From: Cabral, James E.
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:23
PM
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.
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101-3201
(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?
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? And should the service recipients receive
the document identifiers for each document? Currently, we do not have
a mechanism designed to support that.
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]
