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] New Proposed Service Models for ECF3
From:
To:
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 10:46:09 -0700
Title: Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'
1. I have attached my comments to the eServiceFlow
description distributed by Dallas.
The gist of my comments are that the system does not
need to explicitly identify when a service hub has been
implemented.
Aside from that discrepancy, I think Dallas and I are
largely on the same page.
2. I have attached diagrams to illustrate how I
see the ServiceFlow, with and without the use of a Service hub.
My view does not differ all that much from Dallas's
view.
3. The diagrams also attempt to illustrate a prior
statement I made concerning how we define our MDEs.
During last week's conference call,
I said that our MDEs are defined by the messages
they receive, rather than the messages they
transmit.
I think that recognizing this
distinction will help some of our members understand how a Service
Hub, implementing a ServiceMDE, can exist independently of a corresponding
FilingAssemblyMDE.
In the diagrams, please note that my 'arrow-heads'
(the function call's destination) all lead into an MDE.
However, the 'line tips' (the function calls'
origination) all begin at an 'Application'.
There are times when we have previously said:
xxMDE transmits a message to
yyMDE
When, it would have been more accurate to have
said:
XxxApplication transmits a message, via the
yyMDE, to YyyApplication.
For example:
Filer's application transmits a ReviewFiling
message, via the ReviewFilingMDE, to the court's ReviewFiling
application.
I am not necessarily advocating that we must always
substitute the word 'application' anytime we are talking about the initiator of
a function call. I only enter into this discussion so that we really
understand how or MDEs are defined, and, to better understand how
ServiceMDE and FilingAssemblyMDE can be independently
implemented.
- Shane Durham
LexisNexis
From: Dallas Powell [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:41 PM
To: Cabral, James E.;
Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: Re:
[legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models for ECF3
Jim and everyone,
Here is a new document that I
think incorporate Jim's changes and adds new issues that were
also on the Thursday call but were too much information for the first
document. If this works, we can continue to expand.
Dallas
