legalxml-courtfiling — archive

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements

From: Scott Came
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 19:04:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->


















legalxml-courtfiling message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements




From: "Scott Came" <[email protected]>
To: "'Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee'" <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:03:45 -0700 (PDT)






Just for the record, I'm completely neutral on whether the more extensive set of elements is included in the Review
Filing message structure.� I think this should be determined by those with experience implementing our envisioned
Filing Review MDE functionality, and business expertise, as John suggests.

However, I can say that modeling
and mapping the more extensive set of elements presents a schedule risk for us.� Assuming we decide to move forward
including the elements, we'll need to figure out how to mitigate the schedule impact for early July.� Whatever
strategy we use, we should seek to reuse the work already done on reference IEPs in these areas...that will reduce
(but not eliminate) the schedule impact.

> Tom and Scott - This is all news to me.  I have been under
the impression,
> from the earliest days of the TC, that our XML specifications have to
> include the
information needed by courts to initiate new cases, in all case
> types.  That is information that needs to
come in XML so that it is
> available directly to the court (or the Filing Review MDE) for creation of
> the case opening information for filing of complaints, petitions,
> informations, and indictments that
create new cases.  If the data is not
> there, the court cannot file these documents.  Going down into another
layer
> of the message structure to find this information - where according to Scott
> it would not
necessarily be in XML at all - seems to me to create problems
> for implementers.
>
> I read
the Court Filing Blue requirements document to be consistent with my
> prior understanding that this
information is included within the Blue
> specification and schema.  I guess this shows that there are
problems with
> the requirements documents if we three can read it and come to such
> different
expectations about this important part of the efiling process.
> When we discussed the issue in New Orleans -
when I took on responsibility
> for collecting this information - no one suggested that it was out of scope
> for Blue.  When I collected the data from multiple sources, several of whom
> are TC members (including
Dallas, Robin, Roger, and Jim Harris), no one
> suggested that it was outside the scope of Blue.
>
> I am open to discussion of this issue, and am willing to consider
> alternative approaches.  But the
matter requires discussion on the list.
>
> Dallas, Shane, Don, Jim Beard, Shogan Naidoo, Robert
DePhillips and other
> implementers - do we need to include this information in Court Filing Blue
> or
can we create a structure that posits its appearance in some part of the
> Court Filing Blue message that is
not defined in Blue?
>
> I will make sure that this issue is on the Atlanta face to face agenda. 
But
> I would appreciate some discussion on the list prior to the meeting.
>
>   _____
>
> From: Clarke, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:19 AM
> To: [email protected]; Electronic Court Filing Technical
> Committeee
> Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements
>
> I was under the same impression as Scott. 
Typically, the minimum case
> initiation and document indexing elements are restricted to somewhere around
> 10 to 15 data elements.  The rest go into the appropriate IEP.  At least
> that is the strategy assumed
by Global and the GJXDM folks.
>
>