RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] 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: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference      call




From: "Scott Came" <>
To: 
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:42:03 -0700 (PDT)







Thanks, Don.� We will certainly be explicit about cardinality in the domain model we build in Seattle on June 2-3,
with review of same at the TC F2F the next week.

--Scott

> I withdraw my comments at 150 and
159 in favor of the clarifications of the
> Shane requested.
>
>
>
>
Suggestion only -- In the future, you may want to consider adding a column
> for cardinality within message
type definitions.  This timing is often more
> clear and advantageous than defining and reviewing at the time
of schema
> creation.
>
>
>
> Otherwise, I concur with the other comments
and recommended actions by the
> subcommittee.  Well done!
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Don
>
> Donald L. Bergeron
> Systems
Designer
> LexisNexis
> 
> O 937-865-1276
> H
937-748-2775
> M 937-672-7781
>
>   _____
>
> From: John M. Greacen
[mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:39 AM
> To: Electronic Court Filing
Technical Committeee
> Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call
>
>
>
> 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 LexisNexis Meeting Place 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
>
>
>
> 1.	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.
>
>
>
> 2.	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
> Seattle for two days on June 2 and 3 to
prepare a document for review by the
> TC face to face meeting in Atlanta on June 6 to 8.  I have sought
LegalXML
> Member Section funding to support the travel costs for the three team
> members not from
Seattle.  I will ask the TC to ratify this process.
>
>
>
> Specific Issues
concerning the Message Types
>
>
>
> 3.	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.
>
>
>
> 4.	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
Durham comment to line 132.
>
>
>
> 5.	Can queries be addressed to MDEs as well as
to courts?  See Durham
> comment to line 168.
>
>
>
> 6.	Why include a
Policy Reference URI in response messages?  Do we need
> a separate Get Policy Query?  See Durham comment to
line 175.
>
>
>
> 7.	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.
>
>
>
> 8.	What is returned in the response to a Get Filing List query? 
See
> Durham comment to line 192 and 201.
>
>
>
> 9.	In New Orleans 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 Durham comments to
line 209.
>
>
>
> 10.	What is returned in the response to the Get Case List query? 
See
> Durham comments to line 221.
>
>
>
> 11.	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.
>
>
>
> 12.	Do we need to specify additional messages for
>
>
>
> a.	Transmitting
service information, including the documents to be
> served, to the Service MDE and
> b.	Transmitting
information from the Service MDE to the court to
> indicate that service has been completed?
>
>
>
> See last Greacen comment to line 248
>
>
>
> 13.	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 78 Box 23
>
> Regina, New Mexico 87046
>
> 505-289-2164
>
> 505-289-2163 (fax)
>
> 505-780-1450 (cell)
>
> 
>
>
>
>








References:

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call
From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <>






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

--

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