Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















legalxml-courtfiling message






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

--

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








Subject: Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call




From: "John M. Greacen" <>
To: "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:38:43 -0600














We will hold an hour and a half teleconference from 1:00 pm
to 2:30 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 to discuss the Court Filing Blue message
types.  



Remember that we are using the 
application to support this meeting.  Please log onto that site, following Don’s
instructions, and dial into the conference call as well.  



If we have additional time, we will address the architecture
of the Court Filing Blue message envelope structure (see minutes of May 17th
conference call).  I do not believe the
either the DSS Entity Seal nor
the extendability of the Court Filing Blue schema(s)
is ripe for discussionA detailed agenda will be
distributed prior to the meeting.  



The details for next Tuesday’s call are set forth
below.



       
Leader's Name: John Greacen

        Day/Date: Tuesday, May 24,
2005

        Time of call: 1:00 to 2:30
pm Eastern time

        Conference Dial-in:
512-225-3050

        Conference Guest Code:
84759#

        Number of lines needed:
Anticipated Total = 40

        Duration of the call: 1 Hour

        Leader's Phone Number:
505-780-1450



Please review the attached document from the subcommittee to
review the comments on the Court Filing Blue Message Types.  Be prepared; it is a long document –
roughly 25 pages when printed.  Please
find time if possible to review it before the teleconference.  The subcommittee report recommends TC action on each comment, including the items listed below
for discussion by the full TC.  Any member may ask that any of the subcommittee’s recommendations be set for
discussion by the full TC on this or a future
teleconference.



Proposed agenda




 Suggested resolution of the issues concerning Court
     Filing Blue, UBL and GJXDM
     semantics.  We have discovered
     what others have found in trying to use the GJXDM
     as written: the element definitions are poorly and often
     incorrectly worded from a legal standpoint.  GTRI has
     stated that if any user changes any of the definitions, they should define
     a new element in their own namespace.  The only entity with the authority
     to change an element definition is the XSTF.  We cannot wait for the XSTF to change the definitions of all the elements we
     find inartfully worded for our purposes.  The subcommittee suggests that we
     create our own definitions applicable in our domain for GJXDM elements when the semantic content of the element
     remains the same as in the GJXDM, while
     submitting our proposed redefinitions for approval by the XSTF.  A
     couple of examples suffice – Case Initiating Party Person, Case
     Initiating Party Organization, and Case Initiating Party Property are all
     defined exactly the same.  The definition of Case Initiating
     Party Person states that the initiator of a criminal case is the victim;
     in a court it is almost always the State.  We can correct the definitional
     problems for applying these elements in our context – with complete
     confidence that we are using the elements as intended by the GJXDM.  Scott
     Came points out that some members of the XSTF
     will consider our specification non-compliant with the GJXDM
     if we follow this course.





 Proposed
     domain specialist UML working
     session to develop a strawman schema(s) –
     Tom Clarke and I recommend that we convene a small group of domain experts
     together with two GJXDM-knowledgeable technical
     experts to go through the process followed by the Integrated Justice
     Technical Committee for developing GJXDM
     reference documents.  We have
     asked Terrie Bousquin, Robin Gibson, Roger Winters and me to meet with
     Scott Came and Jim Cabral in  for
     two days on June 2 and 3 to prepare a document for review by the TC face to face meeting in  on June 6 to
     8.  I have sought LegalXML Member Section funding to support the travel
     costs for the three team members not from .  I will ask the TC
     to ratify this process. 




Specific Issues concerning the
Message Types




 How do
     we handle “interested persons” -- non-parties who become
     related to a case?  Do we need
     to define a new party type (or the full range of Person, Organization, and
     Property types) to refer to these “non-party parties?”  See Greacen comment to line 130.





 Whether
     Court Filing Blue will support the transmission of information on changes
     to parties and attorneys in XML or require that these by handled
     traditionally, such as by motions for withdrawal or substitution of
     counsel.  See  comment to line 132.





 Can queries be addressed to MDEs
     as well as to courts?  See  comment to
     line 168.





 Why
     include a Policy Reference URI in response messages?  Do we need a separate Get Policy
     Query?  See  comment to line 175.





 We need
     to clarify the distinction between Get Filing Status and Get Filing.  What is returned
     in the response to each?  Is the filing status returned in Get Filing?  If so, why have a Get Filing Status
     query?  Are
     the documents and attachments returned in Get Filing?  If not, why isn’t
     Get Filing Status sufficient by itself?  See comments to lines 181 through
     196.





 What is returned in the response to a Get Filing List query?  See  comment to line 192 and 201.





 In 
     we agreed that the Get Case query should support limitations of the data
     to be returned from the court’s docket or register of actions.  Shane Durham asks whether an xpath statement is a reasonable way to do that and
     suggests instead that we define a standard set of limited queries,
     including selection criteria for getting cases, getting participants in
     cases and getting docket or register of action information.  Can we accomplish this within the
     time available for releasing Court Filing Blue?  See  comments to line 209.





 What is returned in the response to the Get Case List query?  See  comments to line 221.





 In
     eService, how do we handle the distinction between service on attorneys
     for parties and service on the parties themselves if they do not have
     attorneys?  See second Greacen
     comment to line 248.





 Do we
     need to specify additional messages for 





 
  Transmitting
      service information, including the documents to be served, to the Service
      MDE and
  Transmitting
      information from the Service MDE to the court
      to indicate that service has been completed?
 




See last Greacen comment to line 248




 The
     architecture of the Court Filing Blue message envelope structure (see
     minutes of May 17th conference call) – Scott Came and
     Eric Tingom




















John
M. Greacen

Greacen
Associates, LLC

HCR 



505-289-2164

505-289-2163
(fax)

505-780-1450
(cell)










Subcommittee Recommendations on Comments on Message Types.doc












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

--

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