legalxml-courtfiling — archive

[Dallas Powell]

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




From: "Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>
To: <john@greacen.net>,"'Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee'" <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:39:33 -0600






Title: Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'



John,
 
I disagree with your evaluation of Model B and 
believe you have some assumptions that are not true.  The notification we 
are doing in Orange County goes out prior to Clerk Review.  When Model B 
sends service it can include the documents or it can include a link to the 
documents prior to the documents being processed and reviewed by the 
clerks.  I agree that the example that I sent was miss-leading and I should 
have corrected regarding the links.  It was the original request of OC but 
we have changed this to be a generic link that does not refer to the DMS.  
Even still, there is nothing that says the DMS does not have a temporary holding 
place for the document.  There is a dependency on both models to contact 
the court before sending out the information, because as you so clearly reported 
a service must check with the court and access the most up-to-date 
information. 
 
Model A is a many-to-many model and Model B is a 
many-to-one model.  The complexity of managing the many-to-many 
communications model is significantly more difficult than the many to one and 
would require that the update of the users also include the update of all the 
Filing Assembly MDEs which I anticipate after the standard begins will increase 
to hundreds per court.  That means that each Model A Filing Assembly system 
must understand how to properly communicate to sources and update that each time 
a service goes out.
 
You suggested what if the court system bounced the 
message.  Well what if the court system bounces the message to update all 
users, and this includes updating all Filing Assembly MDEs.  That arguments 
is the same in either model.  Now what if you have 50 Filing Assemble MDEs 
and 20 bounce?  Now what.  If the courts server bounces the Filing 
itself will not go through.  I don't think your arguments are 
valid.
 
As for the rules change I do not agree with you 
again.   There is nothing in Model A that says the service must go out 
prior to sending the service to the Courts, and remember, a message has to go to 
the courts to get the updates.  In addition, if the message is sent through 
Model B, the delay in the message being transmitted is less than a few 
minutes.  If as you say the service must be "perform secondary service prior to or contemporaneously".  
I would argue that within a few minutes is 
contemporaneously and the rules you suggest must be changes is 
wrong.
 
I think your position is not valid and in error and 
we must support both models based on what the courts want.
 
Dallas