RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models for ECF3

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: "Cabral, James E." <>

To: <>,<>

Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 21:41:52 -0700

Title: Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

Shane,

 

John and Tom have asked to brin our discussion around 
service to a close.  Here's my response to your 
comments:

 

1. I agree.

 

2. I like your diagrams - let's use 
them.  However,...

 

3. I think your distinction between MDEs and applications 
actually confuses more than explains.  In your model, a request 
comes from an application but the response to that request is returned to an 
MDE.

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:  
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 
10:46 AM
To: 

Subject: RE: 
[legalxml-courtfiling] New 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