RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Certification Requirements draft for comment

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] Certification Requirements draft for comment

From: "Krause, Catherine" <>

To: " ()"<>

Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 09:26:47 -0800

Title: Message

I have 
two comments on this draft:

 

- 
Section 5.1 Standards states "If a vendor can fully comply with the 
standards and execute an incompatible transaction, then the standards are 
incomplete."  I am unclear on what is meant by an "incompatible 
transaction".  Please add a definition or example as to what this might 
be.

 

- I 
support the idea, listed as optional in section 5.2 Test Suite, that the 
test suite may identify compliance with a defined set of "minimal" or core 
requirements, and also "optional", which would be the full set of 
functionality.  This should remain optional, since initially the test suite 
may not make this distinction.  But, I would encourage us to support the 
development of a suite capable of reporting on compliance with core and optional 
features that are agreed to by the TC, and further that it could report on 
compliance with individual optional features.  This would be very 
beneficial to courts who are interested in accepting filings from a vendor; for 
example, if a court was not planning to implement digital signatures, the court 
might be willing to accept Legal XML filings that are certified to be compliant 
with all features except for digital signatures.  I think this is a longer 
term goal, but something that we should strive to work towards in the 
future.

 

 

Catherine Krause

E-Filing Project Manager

King County Department of Judicial 
Administration

(206)296-7860