Comments on User Use Cases

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















legalxml-courtfiling message






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

--

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








Subject: Comments on User Use Cases




From: "John Greacen" <>
To: "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:14:01 -0700














I attach a Word Document containing a number of proposed changes
and additions to the User Use Cases.

 

Here are my overall comments:

 

-                     
I believe the filing assembly component is misnamed,
because it conveys a one directional function – from the filer to the
court.  The reality is that it is a two way transmitter of information
from the filer to the court and from the court to the filer.  

-                     
In general the use cases fail to pay any attention to
the filing of court generated documents.

-                     
The query and response description is too vague for
me, referring to a “system” that is not defined anywhere else in
the use case.  Why doesn’t the use case employ the standard
components for query and response transactions?

-                     
I believe that we all need to discuss the time
sequence of the payment processing specified in the proposed use case. 
The use case provides that payment happens after the filing is accepted by the
Clerk for filing; that does not accord with my understanding of court
processes, which require the payment as a precondition of acceptance of the
filing.

-                     
I am confused by the description of the interaction
between the Filing Review Component and the Court Record Component.  In my
experience, the Filing Review Component calls up data from the court record for
use in both automated and human “clerk review” of the proposed
filing.  This data ranges from the next case number for assignment to a
new case to docket information for an existing case to allow the clerk to
determine whether the filing is appropriate and timely.  I assume that the
Court Record Component facilitates the retrieval of such information but that
is not explicit in the use cases.  The filing can be rejected at that
point – either automatically by a human decision.  But once the
clerk accepts the document for filing, the Court Record Component does not subsequently
reject the document.  But such rejections are supported by the use case.

-                     
The only situation in which a Service Provider
Component is needed is when the court authorizes electronic service but does
not facilitate it through its own operation.  If the court does facilitate
electronic service, the Filing Assembly Component delivers the eService message
just as it would any other message from the court to the
litigant/attorney/interested party.  I find the references to the Service
Provider Component in the current draft of the use cases to be almost always
inappropriate.

-                     
The definitions of components are singular.  But
the use cases sometimes use them in the plural form, e.g., Court Record
Components.  Is this a typo or an intentional use of the plural?  If so,
why?

 

John M. Greacen

Greacen Associates, LLC

HCR 78, Box 23

Regina, New Mexico 87046

505-289-2164

505-289-2163 (fax)

505-780-1450 (cell)

 






wd-CourtFiling-LegalXML-Use-Cases-02[1]greacen comments.doc












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

--

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