RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Implementation Reports

MHonArc v2.4.5 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Implementation Reports

From: "Winters, Roger" <>

To: "''" <>

Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 12:37:14 -0700 

Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Implementation Reports

I believe we agreed we want to allow vendors who use Legal XML specifications to be able to say something positive about themselves as a result. Vendors are now saying they "use" or "comply with" or "participate in" our specifications; they may be as uncertain with how to describe this as we are.

I believe our intent is to exchange the ability to claim a relationship to the TC's standards for the vendor's sharing information about their experience in using the standards.

John Greacen is working on language for the TC to consider. In the meantime, here are some thoughts:

The conditions a vendor must meet in order to say their implementation somehow "follows Legal XML specifications" would be:

        1) must use at least one of the DTDs in their implementation in a clearly describable way;

        2) must format any extensions in ways described in the specification(s); 

        3) must send the Legal XML Electronic Court Records Technical Committee a report, explaining how the DTD is being used, describing the what and why of the vendor's extensions, and providing any other feedback to the TC that help in developing future specifications; and

        4) wait until the TC has acknowledged the vendor has done what was asked, at which point the TC will say that the vendor may then say its implementation(s) is(are) "               "  in relation to Legal XML ECFTC specifications.

The TC, in recognition of this cooperation, would acknowledge that the vendor may represent their implementations as "based on" (or some other term) the Legal XML Electronic Court Filing TC's Proposed Standard(s). (Perhaps the TC would want the vendor to share how they want to describe their relationship to the standards, in hopes of heading off inappropriate claims, etc.)

The TC would need to provide a general but simple format for vendor reporting; perhaps a list of questions like these would do -- 

        Who are you? 
]       What did you implement, for whom, when, and where?
        How did you use the DTD(s)? 
        How did you extend it (them)? 
        Why? 
        What results did you get? 
        What unresolved problems remain? 
        What recommendations do you have on how to build better specifications?

Shared information would be used only in helping the TC to improve existing or develop future specifications. The TC might need to describe how it would respect and protect the vendor's intellectual property rights. I hope these thoughts help give this proposal a bit more flesh.

Roger Winters
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906