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: Dallas Powell <>
To:
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:28:58 -0600
Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object
It was my understanding that we agreed in SLC
that Court Filing 1.1 was a draft, not a recommended standard, which always
creates risk for those implementing against it.
- We are deploying Court Filing 1.1 to all District
Courts in Utah. We have already initiated tests from selected
attorneys. We anticipate receiving live filings in October.
It took us 1 to 2 weeks to move our
proprietary XML structures into Court Filing 1.0 to work with the
Georgia interoperability test. It took another week for us to modify our
system to support Court Filing 1.1 .
I think most people agree that Court Filing
1.0 was not the best, Court Filing 1.1 is not much different, and many agree
with the need to create Court Filing 2.0. We certainly don't want to
spend all our time changing the structure embedded in a filing transmission,
but we do realize that changes will occur and need to
occur.
My understanding is that the draft needs to be
tested in more interoperability tests, which may or may not cause further
changes. I suppose that our agreement to freeze the draft is in an
effort to allow interoperability tests to move forward and not to force the
draft into a recommendation. If we don't support the
interoperability process, then what value is the standard? We end
up isolated with our own implementations that provides limited value for
using Court Filing 1.1.
Dallas Powell
Tybera Development Group
