legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[Dallas Powell]

 MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

















legalxml-courtfiling message






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

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]








Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object




From: Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com>
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:28:58 -0600






Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object



It was my understanding that we agreed in SLC 
that Court Filing 1.1 was a draft, not a recommended standard, which always 
creates risk for those implementing against it.
 
- We are deploying Court Filing 1.1 to all District 
Courts in Utah.  We have already initiated tests from selected 
attorneys.  We anticipate receiving live filings in October.  
It took us 1 to 2 weeks to move our 
proprietary XML structures into Court Filing 1.0 to work with the 
Georgia interoperability test.  It took another week for us to modify our 
system to support Court Filing 1.1 . 
 
I think most people agree that Court Filing 
1.0 was not the best, Court Filing 1.1 is not much different, and many agree 
with the need to create Court Filing 2.0.  We certainly don't want to 
spend all our time changing the structure embedded in a filing transmission, 
but we do realize that changes will occur and need to 
occur. 
 
My understanding is that the draft needs to be 
tested in more interoperability tests, which may or may not cause further 
changes.  I suppose that our agreement to freeze the draft is in an 
effort to allow interoperability tests to move forward and not to force the 
draft into a recommendation.  If we don't support the 
interoperability process, then what value is the standard?  We end 
up isolated with our own implementations that provides limited value for 
using Court Filing 1.1.  
 
Dallas Powell
Tybera Development Group