Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] IP issues involved in the Entity Seal and in other referenced standards

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] IP issues involved in the Entity Seal and in other referenced standards

From: "Dallas Powell" <>

To: <>,"Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <>

Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 16:40:06 -0600

I agree with John Messing about the excellent 
description John Greacen has written regarding the IP issues we face.  
I would like to introduce what I see as a hole in the 
current  wd-LegalXML-Specifications-02 requirements and how this 
affects our view of IP, and our use of other standards.

 

During the call that John refers to below, we were 
told that there are several versions of SOAP and that some of them have IP 
issues.  I suspect that none of the SOAP versions adhere to our 
IP policy.

 

As part of my review of 
the wd-LegalXML-Specifications-02 I have been trying to look back at 
our notes to see what holes we found in LegalXML 1.1 and how the new 
requirements fulfills what was previously lacking.  

 

One hole that I have identified has to do 
with application layer information.

 

We have found that it is critical to include in 
each message, application information and version controls.  There are 
several levels of information need.  They are:

1) The fact that the message we are receiving is a 
LegalXML message to differentiate from other GJXDM related 
messages.

2) Version control of LegalXML.  We must 
provide means to know what schema to use, whether it is LegalXML1.1, LegalXML 
Blue 1.0, 1.1 and so forth so that we can parse the message against the correct 
schema.

3) Court Policy controls.  A Filing Review MDE 
may be servicing several CMS systems, and each system may have a different 
policy.  This may be a parsing issue, but also aIn addition to the policy, 
each policy will need version controls.

4) I am not sure if we need some 
controls that identify which GJXDM schema and subschema we are using 
and the versions for documents that we might embed that are XML based documents 
using GJXDM?

 

In previous meetings we have suggested that we 
abandon the LegalXML element (tag name) and substitute it with the SOAP BODY 
element name.  I said that I would agree as long as we could make it 
work.  Now I see that we need to make a choice and either reverse our 
decision or adopt all of SOAP as a required part of the standard with all its IP 
issues and abandon our purest position on IP.

 

Here is an example of the application layer 
information and how it is embedded in this SOAP Header.  
This example comes from the W3C Primer section of SOAP:

 

 <?xml version='1.0' ?>
<env:Envelope 
xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope">
 
<env:Header>
  <m:reservation 
xmlns:m="http://travelcompany.example.org/reservation"
          
env:role="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/next"
           
env:mustUnderstand="true">
   
<m:reference>uuid:093a2da1-q345-739r-ba5d-pqff98fe8j7d</m:reference>
   
<m:dateAndTime>2001-11-29T13:20:00.000-05:00</m:dateAndTime>
  
</m:reservation>
  <n:passenger 
xmlns:n="http://mycompany.example.com/employees"
          
env:role="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/next"
           
env:mustUnderstand="true">
   <n:name>�ke J�gvan 
�yvind</n:name>
  </n:passenger>
 </env:Header>
 
<env:Body>

 

This XML example demonstrates the application 
and version control of this XML instance:  

    <?xml 
version='1.0' ?>.

 

It identifies the application layer of SOAP 
and maybe version control if the date is considered the control:

    <env:Envelope 
xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"> 
 

It identifies the application layer of the travel 
agency but no version control:

    <m:reservation xmlns:m=http://travelcompany.example.org/reservation 

LegalXML needs an application and version control 
identifiers. In addition, we need Court Policy 
identifiers and version control especially if one Clerk Review MDE supports more 
than one CMS. 

 

We have abandoned the LegalXML element which never 
had enough information anyway, however, unless we retrieve it and add to it, we 
are going to have to do something else.  If we follow our pattern of 
depending on SOAP, this means we are going to adopt more than just the Body 
element.   We now need to adopt the SOAP Header.

 

If we reverse our position and create a LegalXML 
element with additional controls needed then LegalXML can stand on its 
own.  If we adopt SOAP headers then we have created a standard that is 
dependent on, or requires another standard that does not adhere to our IP 
policies.  

 

Dallas