legalxml-sc — archive

[Donald Bergeron]

This meeting is to continue the brainstorming and begin bringing the ideas into sharper focus. To address John Messing's recent post: John - I am sorry, but I don't understand what meeting is being referenced in this communication. Was it April 17? Why then are we receiving notice of it almost two months later? Was there a later meeting? If so, when did it occur? - DLB - It was the meeting of April 17th. I found it was in a library folder of mine and had never been sent. I then corrected the error and ask the forgiveness of the discussion group. I have been tied up in LN issues and had not had time to loop back to LegalXML issues until this time. John - On the substance of the message, I think it is premature to discuss marketing until the product can be safely represented to be "tried and true." That will require interoperability testing, which has not yet occurred to my knowledge. DLB - It is not the marketing of the standards, but the engaging of the professional associations not related to Court Filing into the standards creation process. It agree that the marketing of standards should be done carefully and should be predicated on interoperability testing, or for requests to engage in those tests! John - It would seem that interoperability testing should also include stress testing given the recent thinking about the probable non-scalability of remote procedure call api's such as that architected for CourtFiling and Cal2GEFS. They may not support high volume efiling sites. It is an unknown that should be thoroughly studied and resolved. DLB - Good point John. This should be discussed in the layered interoperability sub-committee within Court Filing.