MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
legalxml-courtfiling message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object
From: "Krause, Catherine" <>
To: " ()"<>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:43:03 -0700
Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object
The following are in response to some of the many comments made below:
- King County is implementing Court Filing 1.1 as part of our E-Filing project. We are currently in user acceptance testing and anticipate going live with our pilot project (filings in live cases by a limited number of law firms) soon (September/October timeframe). After the pilot project, we would be opening up e-filing to any filers who want to use it. As John Greacen stated, we made a decision at the Salt Lake City meeting that there will not be further changes to Court Filing 1.1 because there are implementations using it. That decision was included in the minutes, I believe, and since no one disagreed after the meeting during the minute review, that decision should be final; we should not need to continue to debate that point. Major changes such as moving to schema, considering moving to ebXML, considering a "person" object, etc. are all to be part of Court Filing 2.0.
- Someone said that "actor" is not used in Court Filing 1.1. It is used in Court Filing 1.1, although if you do a "search" for it in the PDF document, you don't find it (not sure why that is). We are using "actor" in our implementation for the filer. We are not doing case initiation in this phase, but in the future I anticipate that we may sometimes use actor for different purposes such as parties to a case, which is not always a person, as has been pointed out by at least one of the people in this e-mail exchange.
- I agree with the principle that John Messing reminded us of, which is that those proposing a major change such as using a "person" object instead of the current "actor" and "role" bear the burden of justifying that change. As we all know there are many, many ways to technically implement any given system. We could endlessly debate any and all of the potential options. As part of OASIS and also the larger justice community, we should model whatever solutions we choose to implement in our work products after existing standards and best practices whenever possible. I hope that approach, as well as considerations of the impact to prior implementations, are weighed and considered as we discuss and debate Court Filing 2.0.
- I am hopeful that we also will develop a Q&R 1.1, Court Document 1.1, etc. that is compatible with Court Filing 1.1, and that those standards also will also hold on major structural changes until a Court Filing 2.0 is developed. It seems that with so many things to consider for Court Filing 2.0, it will take a fair amount of time for that standard to reach a state where an implementation could use it. We, from what I understand, are fairly close to having a Q&R 1.1 and Court Document 1.1; I hope that work can be completed so that those courts that have Court Filing 1.1 implementations can implement these important Legal XML standards rather than wait for Court Filing 2.0.
Thanks,
Catherine Krause
E-Filing Project Manager
King County Department of Judicial Administration
(206)296-7860
