legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[System]

Last night i read over the recent TC discussions... i appreciate the comments made by all especially since i am not familiar with the Georgia test implementation or the origins of the architecture that was conceived some time ago... so my inquiries and comments are based on a "sky" view and the desire to move ahead on the 2.0 specification definitions which would include requirements coming from 1.1 specification test findings... 1. Resolution of Query/Response: DL concurs with Shane and Dallas... 1.1 is frozen. any testing of the 1.1 specification sounds like it will need to "extend" the specification to meet the individual court functional requirements as defined in national or local rules. We will learn about these extensions from the 1.1 specification test report(s). I spoke to Karl Best this morning about the version control aspect to our discussion. The TC can use whatever conventions have meaning to all TC members as we move forward. the proposed 1.1.a; 1.1.b; 1.1.c; convention should be considered by those TC members implementing the specification 1.1 in pilot or production development phases. Those testing the specification have no need to track such amendments to the "1.1" static specification. 1a) Were the lessons learned from Georgia incorporated into the 1.1 specification? the place holders described in TC messages must have been placed there for a reason(s)? or is the specification approved as 1.1 incomplete?? and not extensible by TC developers who are implementing in pilot or production environments? Is it complete enough to test specification? DL Proposed conclusion: move forward with testing the specification 1.1.... as suggested by Dallas and Shane... TC members who are implementing 1.1 as developers will share their findings and identify changes /new stuff to incorporate into specification (fill-in placeholders) as discoveries are made. DL Proposed Action: Nov 5 TC teleconference bring thread to closure ... 2. How many TC Members or non-members are currently developing/implementing "versions" of LegalXML specification 1.0; 1.1? I was told yesterday in a meeting with Administrative Office of U.S. Court technical representatives that there are no State court or Federal court implementations of LegalXML specifications. Yet John Messing... notes below that there are? from my attendance at two OASIS LegalXML face to face meetings ... i understood that Utah State Court is building on spec version 1.0? Washington, King County, is developing system for 2003 implementation on 1.1 spec? AOC has just started a vendor driven development of electronic court filing system specific to the requirements of California state courts based on Georgia LegalXML findings? OCXI, as i understand it, is a proposed collaborative effort to develop middleware that would apply the existing LegalXML specification (1.1)or perferably version 2.0 if ready in time? DL Proposed conclusion: Those TC members who want to "test" the Court Filing specification 1.1 I would ask to identify themselves during the Nov 5 TC teleconference. Those members who volunteer to test the specification 1.1 will need to map out the approach to be taken in specification testing based on TC guidance provided. I concur with Tom Clarke message 10/17 2:59pm group levels 1 and 2 as basic conformance requirement level and group conformance levels 3&4 for next level of conformance. When developing test criteria suggest this approach. 3. Status Court Policy Framework: explanations to my inquiries about this specification in Boston... made me start thinking about this "document" as a "collaboration profile"... as expressed in the ebXML documentation i had recently read. Given the discussion to date and my own confusion as to how best to define and address the repository, "collaborative" profile or any semantic content issues that may surface during test of the specifications i think we should put aside this document for now. DL Proposed Action: Place the Court Policy Interface/Framework document on the shelf until after 1.1 specification testing is completed and TC analysis of test specification findings have been completed. Suggest Court Policy Interface subcommittee focus immediate efforts on researching existing XML based standards that can be leveraged in some way to support existing OASIS LegalXML technical specifications Court Filing, Court Document, Query/Response.... 4. DL current OASIS Legal XML activity: I am in the process looking over the Court Document 1.1 specification, in Boston i volunteered to support that subcommittee.... i am reviewing the contents of a zip file recently provided... with an eye to version 2.0. DL travels to CALIF.. to attend first face to face OASIS LegalXML IJ TC next week. hope to see some of you there... otherwise will hear your voices during the teleconference scheduled for Nov 5th... cheers diane