legalxml-courtfiling — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes
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] Salt Lake minutes
- From: Dallas Powell <[email protected]>
- To: [email protected]
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:02:01 -0600
Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes
|
for what its worth
Having participated in the GCAC
interoperability test at the very end (as both an EFM and EFSP), there
were a few things that we struggled with. Because there was more than one
place to introduce actors, there was uncertainty among the vendors about where
to put the information. Also from our memory there seemed to be
some elements that did not directly map to fields we needed
to loaded and updated the SUSTAIN CMS so we made some interpretations
specific to a court.
One of our specific disappointments about the DTD
is that you don't know what type of filing you are receiving until you get to
the lead document.
In speaking with Todd at the CA AOC CEFTS meeting
held in June 2002, my interpretation of a discussion that I had with him
was that there are some areas of the DTD that can work for all courts, and there
are areas where courts need specific information. To encompass every need
for all courts may not be feasible within a DTD, where as schema offers more
options. Perhaps that may give more insight to what a DTD Lite might
mean.
Also, in the interoperability test, since we were
supporting Digital Signatures and no one else could support it, we had
to ignore that portion of the DTD and not include those components in our
transmissions. We did not specifically look at all the elements that were
or were not used. That may be another motive for a DTD
Lite?
Dallas
|