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] Interoperability test requirements for	ECF1.1




From: Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com>
To: Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov, john@greacen.net,legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 15:24:03 -0600









I agree that level 1 and 2 are easily grouped 
together.  In the Georgia Interoperability test, all vendors conformed to a 
single response because that is what the first installed EFM did.  We were 
never able to test our specific responses.  I realize that since we only 
participated at the end of the test we were not able to introduce our behavior 
so it is not fair to say that they would not have tried with more 
time.
 
Level 3 was tested in the Georgia interoperability 
test without level 4 filing fees.  In fact, as I recall only case 
initiation was tested, no updates.  You are right usually the case 
initiation requires fees, but being able to test to see if the elements carried 
enough information to deal with a CMS is a good test on its own.  The 
elements in the current DTD do not provide enough information to determine 
whether the courts should charge, or whether some ASP should charge and how the 
information is forwarded, to what merchant account, etc.  Also, I am 
concerned about the security of the credit card information stored in the 
envelope.  All of these issues are what compelled me to propose these be 
separated from a test that loads the CMS.
 
Dallas