Draft "implementation policy statement"

MHonArc v2.4.5 -->

















legalxml-sc message






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

--

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








Subject: Draft "implementation policy statement"




From: "John Greacen" <>
To: "'LegalXML OASIS Steering Committee \(E-mail\)'" <>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:01:15 -0600

















The Electronic Court Filing Technical
Committee has developed the following policy statement to deal with a problem
reported by vendors – that courts are requiring them to certify that
their products “comply” with our TC standards.  Because those
standards are still being tested, we expect that implementers will modify and
extend them in some ways.  The draft policy statement is intended to give
vendors a way to respond to such requirements, while increasing the likelihood
that we will get complete feedback from implementers on their experience with
our specifications.

 

This statement is posted on the TC list
for final comments by close of business on Monday, June 9th.  I
would appreciate any comments that other TC chairs might have – within this
same time frame.  This is an issue that every TC will have to face in the
future.

 

Implementation Policy Statement

 

The specifications developed by this Technical Committee,
and approved as “proposed standards” by the COSCA/NACM Joint
Technology Committee, have not yet been recommended for approval as
“recommended standards” by COSCA and NACM or OASIS because they are
still undergoing interoperability testing.  The Technical Committee
expects that implementers will make significant modifications and extensions to
these specifications as they test them in specific operational settings.  

 

A number of courts have included in their procurement
documents requirements that an electronic filing application
“comply” with the technical specifications approved by this
Technical Committee or by the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee. 
Application vendors do not know how to respond to such requirements.

 

The Technical Committee hereby authorizes application
providers to represent that their products “follow” one of more of
this Technical Committee’s specifications if all of the following
statements are true:

 

1)       the
application in question uses XML substantially in accordance with the structure
and content of the Electronic Court Filing 1.O, Electronic Court Filing 1.1,
Court Document 1.1, or Query & Response specification; and

2)      all
extensions are made in the manner called for by the specification; and

3)   the
application provider has provided to the OASIS Legal XML Member Section
Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee an “implementation
report” describing all modifications and extensions to the TC’s
proposed specification, together with a narrative statement of the reasons for
making those modifications and extensions.   

 

The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing
Technical Committee will publish all “implementation reports” along
with the proposed specifications on the OASIS website for the benefit of all
users of these specifications and for the purpose of furthering our own
understanding of the operational requirements for future versions of the
specifications.

 

An application provider’s assertion should be in the
form, “[company or court] asserts that [name of product] follows the
OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee
[name of specification] as defined in the Technical Committee’s
“Implementation Policy Statement” of [date], subject to the limitations
set forth in that policy statement.”

 

Courts and other entities using products about which such
assertions are made should understand:

 

-                     
that the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing
Technical Committee specifications have been approved as “proposed
standards” for the purpose of comment and experimental implementation;
their efficacy has not yet been demonstrated through complete interoperability
testing; they will undoubtedly be refined and expanded beyond their current
content before they are suitable for “recommended standard” status;

-                     
that the assertion that an application “follows” a Technical
Committee specification is a statement by an application provider; such
statements are not reviewed or verified by OASIS, the Legal XML Member Section,
or its Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee; none of the foregoing make
any representations concerning the accuracy of such assertions, nor any
representations that implementations that in fact “follow” the
current specifications will successfully interoperate;

-                     
that the assertion that an application vendor has provided an
“implementation report” to the Electronic Court Filing Technical
Committee can be verified by anyone to whom the assertion is made by searching
for the report on the OASIS website; and

-                     
that “implementation reports” filed by application providers
also represent assertions by the providers; neither OASIS, the Legal XML Member
Section, nor its Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee independently
verify that the modifications and extensions reported are in fact contained in
the application or that they are the only modifications or extensions contained
in it.  

 

 













Follow-Ups:

Re: [legalxml-sc] Draft "implementation policy statement"
From: "Karl F. Best" <>
RE: [legalxml-sc] Draft "implementation policy statement"
From: jkeane <>



References:

RE: LegalXML.org Domain transfer
From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <>






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

--

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