Re: [legalxml-sc] Draft "implementation policy statement"

Perhaps a LegalXML Conformance TC could be formed in the member section
to develop conformance test suite for the specs produced by the various
LegalXML TCs?

-Karl

John Greacen wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>

--

=================================================================

Karl F. Best
Vice President, OASIS
office  +1 978.667.5115 x206
mobile +1 978.761.1648

http://www.oasis-open.org