legalxml-courtfiling — archive

Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Revised Standard for Specification Testing

From: John Messing
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:43:00 -0000

Title: Revised Standard for Specification Testing I would change no. 5 - The scope of test criteria should not extend beyond the specification being tested. - to - The scope of the test criteria shall be limited to the specification being tested unless expressly incorporated from another document. I would change no. 8 - All special terms used in Interoperability Testing documents must be formally defined (e.g., in the draft document the term EFP was used, but means different things to different people). Ideally this should be done for the TC as a whole. - to - Any term used in a specification Testing document should be readily apparent from the context or in the case of doubt or uncertainty, expressly defined within the text of the Testing document itself. Original Message ----- From: Krause, Catherine To: ([email protected]) Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:19 AM Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Revised Standard for Specification Testing All: Attached is a pr oposed revised standard for specification testing. For those who were not able to participate in the face-to-face discussion at the TC meeting in Salt Lake City, the purpose of t his document is to define the process for establishing test criteria for all Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee S pecifications (for example, Court Filing 1.1) . This establishes the definition for our TC of successfully using a committee specification, which is something that three member organizations must certify for those committee specifications that we choose to submit to OASIS for consideration as an OASIS standard. We also propose to use this same process for the purpose of moving a standard to Recommended status, for presentation to the Joint Technology Committee. The co-chairs would like to present our standard for specification testing to the Joint Technology C ommittee meeting on July 21 st . This gives us a short turnaround for comment on this proposed standard (I apologize for not getting this out sooner) . I believe that all feedback and discussion from the face-to-face meeting in Salt Lake City has been incorporated into this document. Following the process proposed for approval of minutes by the TC, I suggest TC members have one week from the posting of this document ( i.e. until July 16 th ) to comment or provide feedback. If no feedback is received, the document will be deemed approved as our standard for specification testing. If feedback is received, it will be incorporated into the document on July 17 th . If this does not allow enough time to present to the Joint Technology Committee meeting on July 21 st , an alternate timeline can be established. We may want to consider whether this document should move to the Certification S ubcommittee for any future enhancements after this initial version. It s eems as if this would be a logical part of that subcommittee ' s scope. Note that once the TC has agreed on this revised standard, the Court Filing interoperability testing definition needs to be revised accordingly. The attendees at the Salt Lake City meeting felt it was important to first establish the base-line process for all TC specifications, and then review and revise the Court Filing testing definition per our standardized process. Catherine Krause E-Filing Project Manager King County Department of Judicial Administration (206)296-7860 [email protected] <<Testing Recommendations, v2.doc>>