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] Query and Response Specification - Ple aseReview by September 24t h
From: "Taylor, Steven (CAA)" <>
To: "'Legalxml-Courtfiling (E-mail)" <>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 13:10:20 +0930
Title: Query and Response Specification - Please Review by September 24th
Dear
All,
Continue the good work on this Spec. As a voice from
afar - Australia, what you have done would seem to fit our situation as
well.
My
comments on the Issues & Notes
Segregating Normative Queries - Agree and do it sooner
rather than later
Sub-elements or attributes - prefer Sub-elements but
not wedded to them
totalParameters - why have this, it just seems like an
unnecessary overhead
responseRow - as long as we stay in synch with Court
Filing
getActorRole - this seems to be the subject of some
discussion at the moment, so may be we let some "water flow under this
particular bridge" before committing
getCaseActorList - Yes put this in the normative
queries
Authentication - I am in 2 minds on this as I think we
will need to carry optional elements for authentication, but yet I do not know
what the privileges will be or the number of different privileges. We are just
going through this body of work at the moment and we are currently envisaging 7
levels of privilege (which seems a lot - hopefully we can cut it down). Of
course this could vary greatly from one state to another, and one country to
another. This makes it difficult to have any level of specificity at this
stage.
Security - I would prefer that this is not in the Q/R
Specification. Its best left out with a note stating so at the front of the
Spec.
No
further comments on the Standards Draft it looks good.
Steven
Taylor
Project Director
e-Business Transformation
Courts
Administration Authority
South
Australia
