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] RE: [legalxml-courtfiling-policy] Sdurham -RE: Final Call - Cour	t Filing Policy Requirements




From: Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com>
To: "Lewis, Diane" <Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov>,'John Messing' <jmessing@law-on-line.com>, Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov,Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com, legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org,legalxml-courtfiling-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 14:53:45 -0600






We anticipate setting up a complete system for testing interoperability.  We
are in discussions with a vendor to provide licenses for the components we
need to reproduce the integration we have done between Utah's CORIS Case
Management System (need database license) and the Document Management System
( need license) that Utah utilizes to scan documents and store
electronically filed documents.

I will create a document that exposes our dates for live filings, the types
of filings, the different type of interoperability tests that we anticipate,
and how others can participate. I anticipate having this document before
Nov. 5th.  Currently writing a document on how to ease the pain for users
creating XML right now for a vendor.

It is our position that we will document and publish the details of what an
EFSP must do to communicate to the EFM that is installed.  I will also
provide why we are doing what we are doing in the "place holder" areas as
feedback for lessons learned ( that should be learning not learned).

Dallas Powell
Tybera Development Group
www.tybera.com

> DL - Do you  plan to nominate your project for "testing specification 1.1"
process... in the coming months?  dl

>
>
> Dallas - The current Utah LegalXML implementation uses the CourtFiling 1.1
DTD.
>
> >DL- 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 sp
> > ecification 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 e
> > nough 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 specificatio
> > n (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 appr
> > oach 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 fo
> > r 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >