Results of SF face to face meeting 2-23-06

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















legalxml-courtfiling message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Results of SF face to face meeting 2-23-06




From: "John M. Greacen" <>
To: "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:36:50 -0700














Here are the minutes from Thursday’s meeting.



Present in person:

Michael Alexandrou



Tom Carlson 

Tom Clarke

Robin Gibson

John Greacen

Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt

Michael Robinson

Christopher Smith



Present by phone:

Jeff Barlow





Brian Hickman

Dr. Laurence Leff

John Messing

Robert O’Brien

Roger Winters



CITOC members
joining afternoon session:



Chris Andreau

Linda Bowers

Debbie Cook

Alan Crouse

Les Davis

Tom Edwards

Peter Haas

Bob Hanson

Mike Love

Craig McClain

Neil Miller

Abdiel Ortiz

Jim Rebo

Jim Roggero

Bob Roper

Bob Smith



The members present reviewed the two documents prepared by
Jim Harris and .  We concluded that we are unlikely to get
significant feedback from court domain experts independently reviewing the
domain model, data element spreadsheet, or schemas.  We are much more likely to get feedback
during test implementations of the specification.  Consequently, we decided not to expend
further energy on the Practitioner Review Guide.



We concluded that there is a valid need for the Summary and
Introduction as a high level technical introduction to the specification for IT
managers, project managers and programmers.  We ask Jim and Terrie to make the following
changes to the document:



-                     
Remove sections 1 and 2.  Roger, Christopher and Tom should
consider reuse of some of section 1 in the summary for court administrators and
judges.

-                     
Remove material copied from the
specification.  This document should
describe the purpose of various sections of the specification and provide
references or links to it, but should not merely repeat information from the
specification.

-                     
Insert diagrams describing in
graphic form the specification and the architecture.



Our objective is to provide a series of documents that provide
layers of description and detail, but do not duplicate each other.  There will be four layered documents --
the summary for policy makers, the Executive Summary approved as part of the ECF 3.0 specification, the technical introduction, and the
specification itself.



We reviewed with Tom Carlson the spreadsheet that he has
created setting forth the ECF 3.0 data element
definitions together with their GJXDM 3.03
counterparts and NCSC IEPD
data element definitions.  He has
reviewed 6000 of the 16000 lines on the combined spreadsheet and identified the
following types of definitional differences:



-                     
Differences that merely add
contextual specificity to a generally stated GJXDM
element.  Tom will do some further
analysis to make sure that the inherited characteristics of the GJXDM element are consistent with our usage.  However, these differences merely
reflect appropriate use of the GJXDM element for
electronic court filing purposes. 
No purpose would be served reporting these contextual amplifications to
the XSTF.

-                     
New elements, or differentiations of
GJXDM elements, such as criminal case, civil case,
traffic case, probate case, etc. rather than case.  These should be brought to XSTF’s attention, perhaps with a suggestion of a hierarchical
structure such as case/courtCase/domesticCourtCase.

-                     
Improved definitions, which should
be brought to XSTF’s attention.

-                     
Definitions that include information
about the unit of measure or other descriptive information that is contained in
the data type element in GJXDM.  This definitional text should be
stripped from the ECF 3.0 definitions but included in
text in the ECF 3.0 specification.  This change should be included in the
3.01 release already agreed upon.



Tom Carlson believes that he can complete his analysis
within a period of weeks so that ECF 3.01 could be
released within six weeks to two months.



We discussed the next major release of GJXDM.  It will replace relationships currently
defined through inclusion within the GJXDM hierarchical
structure. These structures, with produce recursion, will be replaced with peer
elements and defined relationships between them.  We believe that conversion of ECF 3.0 to the new structure should be relatively
straightforward; we should be able to complete the conversion with volunteer
labor and do not plan to retain a consultant for this purpose.



We discussed John Messing’s
concerns about the stability of ECF 3.0.  We made no changes to the plans for ECF 3.01 or ECF 4.0 as a result
of that conversation and did not adopt the suggest to postpone implementing ECF 3.0 until the ECF 4.0 change
(converting to the next major GJXDM release) is
completed.



We met with sixteen CITOC members
and engaged in a constructive discussion with them for an hour, covering the
role, purpose, and structure of the ECFTC, what we
request of CITOC (implementation of ECF 3.0 and increased participation in the TC – particularly court domain experts).  
indicated that it intends to implement ECF 3.0.  Mike Love of  promised to provide us with the
metadata elements defined by the Florida Supreme Court for our review in
enhancing ECF 3.0 for appellate filings.  We also offered our assistance to Jim Rebo who will chair the CITOC
standards committee.  Bob Roper
indicated that CITOC will probably create an efiling interest group.  We applauded that development and
offered to establish an ongoing liaison relationship with that group.  Several CITOC
members are interested in the development and use of fully marked up court
documents – the task of our Court Document Subcommittee.  Another topic raised was extensions for GJXDM for juvenile case data elements; we reported on the
extension elements that we had created for delinquency and dependency cases.



During the conference telephone call, the TC resolved to submit ECF 3.0 for
a 90 day period of public review within OASIS.



We also received a report from Brian Hickman concerning
primary service of process.  He
recommended that the TC postpone any enhancement of ECF 3.0 to include primary service until the  committee chaired by
John Messing completes proposed rule and statutory amendments authorizing
primary service through electronic means and best practices for electronic
service in this context.  The TC adopted this recommendation. 





John
M. Greacen

Greacen
Associates, LLC

HCR 



505-289-2164

505-289-2163
(fax)

505-780-1450
(cell)






















[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]