legalxml-courtfiling — archive

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

From: Donald Bergeron
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:43:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <[email protected]>
To: "'Cabral, James E.'" <[email protected]>, Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:43:01 -0400

Title: Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

After reviewing the discussion points and positions described below I would suggest that we hedge our bets.

My bet is that in the fullness of time the first option will win out. I believe there will be a function of education and removing of fear uncertainty and doubt.

Given that, for the first release of court filing 2.0, we should only support option one. By doing so, we do not preclude the option of supporting option two and a subsequent release. If there is not a solid, educated business demand then we will not implement the and a subsequent release. However, I believe that is a valid option in the roadmap.

Regards,

Don

Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
[email protected]
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781

From: Cabral, James E. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 1:25 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

Everyone,

Thursday and Friday last week, John Greacen, Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt, another MTG consultant, and I made a first attempt at developing a domain model and GJXDM mapping for electronic service. We wrote up a quick 3 page summary of the model and solicited initial feedback from some of the vendors actively participating on the TC with the expectation that we would send it to TC Monday. We did not expect the considerable response we received.

With the hope of coming to a consensus as a TC as soon as possible, I have summarized the comments over the last couple days and a proposed alternative model in the attached document. I have also attached a service cover sheet that Tybera is currently developing with , that graciously provided as an example.

As you will see from the main document, the main decision point is whether we need to support one or two service models. We request feedback from all TC members on this important issue as soon as possible so that we can finish up the specification. Please be sure to send your response to the entire list. If you can make your comments via "Track Changes" in Word, that would simplify our aggregation of the comments. I will leave it to the TC chairs to propose a decision making process.

<<Proposed Service Models for ECF3.doc>> <<NEF Draft 1 dated 04-20-05.doc>>
Thanks!

Jim Cabral

James E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.

(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'
  - From: "Dallas Powell" <[email protected]>