legalxml-courtfiling — archive

Apologies and follow-up to Jan 6th 2004 conference call

From: Diane Lewis
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:48:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

Subject: Apologies and follow-up to Jan 6th 2004 conference call

From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]"<[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:56:57 -0500 (EST)

TC Chair and Members,

Sorry i had to ring-off early from yesterday's (1/6) conference call.  I was called away from my desk.

I realize it was unfortunate i missed the remaining detailed discussion of the Court Filing Blue definition.  I look forward to reading the conference call minutes to learn the final "Blue" definition.

There are several thoughts i wish to share with TC members as we move forward in 2004 Court Filing discussions and initiatives.  

<You will note that through these expressed thoughts i continue my thread of discussion from 2003 as to how the TC will finally resolve the question of maintaining a Court Filing sub-committee called Court Document given the focus of the committee's  work to date is on basic court filing methods to accommodate any "payload".>

Thought #1:
On December 7th the TC received a public comment from [email protected]: "Would the committee be coming out with an XML Schema as against a DTD which is presently under review (as I understand)? "

*	There needs to be clarification between Court Document (court filings types) and the messaging schemas associated with EFM.

Suggest:  separate initiative either as part of the Court Filing TC or through a proposal to the LegalXML section to create a separate TC for Electronic Preparation Provider spec development??
 i realize this suggestion does introduce administrative decisions with regard to other legal document initiatives (e.g. contracts) and rises the topic of interoperability.

Re: The EFP= front end application that prepares and submits filings .  The EFP is the application on the filer's side of the e-filing architecture also called the client.   Is there a LegalXML recommendation, model for authoring the "payload" of all court filing types? where does this scope of work intersect with Blue vision?
The Transcript TC states:  The purpose of this TC is to develop an XML compliant syntax for representing legal transcript documents either as stand-alone structured content, or as part of other legal records.  
Shouldn't an "off-spring" of Blue be a TC or a Sub TC under Court Filing that constructs an XML compliant syntax for representing court filing documents authored by Court customers (e.g. attorneys)?   Is there a need from such a specification?

Decision for TC members to entertain:  Is this type of standard/specification development of value to the legal/justice community?  If so, where does it belong:   OASIS Legal XML or OASIS e-government, or a different effort similar which could be defined along the lines of the Education TC purpose statement ?
The purpose of the OASIS Education XML TC is to represent international pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade (PK12) interests by developing XML requirements documentation for shared extensible user profiles, controlled vocabularies, taxonomies, and thesauri, and other needed specifications.

Thought#2  The Open Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) Court interface is defining its architecture data classes for an Electronic Filing Manager: Filing;  Confirmation;  Query; Response;  Policy. 

Is the OXCI 2004 initiative considered by theTC members to be a Blue implementation?  In reverse the OXCI documentation points to Blue compliance... Can someone please clarify for me the intended action plan for Blue development and how that supports OXCI or how OXCI development supports Blue specification creation?  

As i understand it:  OXCI is a state court initiative  and Blue is a set of standards to be applicable to any court setting..??

Thought#3:   Blue's vision is a set of specs that enables exchanges of court filings and related court filing information among courts, their partners and customers.  

Is the Blue vision considering exchanges of court filings/notice in any court setting (e.g. federal,state) meaning a wide spectrum of specifications within a defined core set or is Blue 2004 to be a set of specs based on one "model" of court information data exchange?

Does the Blue vision of filing court case documents include an interoperability component to interface with Electronic Filing Providers (open source based or proprietary based technology)?

Thought#4  Performance/Testing... 
i think we had developed documentation that maps requirements from a TC perspective... perhaps this topic can be revisited as an agenda item during one of the 2004 meetings.. in association with Blue development.  recent resources on the XML performance topic through the e-Gov TC thread have come to my attention and might be helpful when considering Blue development.

 
I appreciate TC members taking time out to send me responses to one or more of my inquiries or pointing me to existing TC documentation that addresses my inquiry.
Look forward to continued productive, conclusive discussions as Court Filing TC initiatives move forward in 2004. 

thanks for allowing me to participate in this TC over these past years...  diane

>>Outlook Object<<
Subject: RE: [egov] Re: Need advice regarding XML performance issues


Dear Mr. Hughes, Duane

As Duane says there are different aspects of "performance" in XML parsing and processing.
You might want to look at the attached XML Performance Test report and the stress curve picture.

The report and further information can be found at:

http://www.x-fetch.com/Component_WhitePapers_PDF/X-Fetch_Performer22_Benchmark.pdf


Best regards
Jouko Salonen
www.reublica.fi