Timestamps

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
















legalxml-courtfiling message






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

--

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








Subject: Timestamps




From: 
To: 
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:44:31 -0700









Jim, et al,
 
Authorized Timestamp
 
The document that I posted on 9/26/2005 contains this 
working definition of what I have called 'Authorized Timestamp' 
(call it what-you-will).
 
The 
time when a user approved (released) a filing to be sent to the FilingReview 
process.  
 
 
As we discussed on the conference call, this value could be 
generalized and made applicable to all messages.  In that case, a 
generalized definition might be:
 

The 
time when a user or process approved (released) this message data to be 
transmitted to a recipient MDE.

 
 
The important aspect of the definition, it that we 
understand this value is not synonymous with 'MessageAssembled timestamp'  
(n/a), 'MessageSent timestamp',  or 'MessageReceived timestamp', although, 
in some systems, these timestamps might all be equal.  

 
 
FilingReviewedTimestamp
 
In that 9/26/2005 document, I suggested that we should 
have a place to express the time at which a clerk decided to accept or 
reject a filing.   In that 9/26/05 
document, I proposed this draft definition of FilingReviewedTimestamp:
 
The 
time when the FilingReview process (or user) decided that the filing was to be 
accepted or rejected (or, when it decided that the filing could not be reviewed 
at all)
 
 
We did not discuss this proposed value in today's 
conference calls, but, to be honest, I think there would've been little 
support for this value - it is more of a 'nice to know' than a 'need to 
know'.
 
But WAIT!!....  I think it might be a 
freebie:
 
If we agreed to make 'Authorized Timestamp' a member 
of *all* of our messages... 
...and also agreed to the functional definition 
I proposed above (or something akin to it)...
 
....then the FilingReview_Callback message's 'Authorized 
Timestamp' would represent the 'FilingReviewedTimestamp'.   We 
would have our bases covered.
 
 
How's that sound?
- Shane Durham
 
 
 
 
 


From: John M. Greacen [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:09 AM
To: Electronic 
Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] 
Conference call continuation




Friends – I just touched base with .  To stay on our timeline, we must resolve 
the remaining issues today.  Consequently, I have scheduled a further 
conference call for 4:00 pm Eastern, 1:00 pm Pacific time this 
afternoon.

The call information remains the 
same:

Call in number               
1-605-528-8855
Access code                 
2892164

We will resolve the remaining issues 
set forth below:


7.  Whether we need a FilingAuthorized 
Timestamp – the time when a user approved (released) a filing to be sent to the filing review process (Shane’s 
recommendation).


8.  Whether we need a FilingReceived 
Timestamp – the time when the filing review MDE received (lodged) a filing in 
addition to the originalMessageReceipt date and time (Shane’s 
recommendation).

9.  Whether we need a FiledTimestamp – the 
legally effective 
date assigned to a filed document (Shane’s 
recommendation).


10.  Whether we need a DocketingReceived 
Timestamp – the time when the court record process receives a docketing (Shane’s 
recommendation).


11.  Whether we should adopt a model for 
person-organization relationships that is independent of the model used by GJXDM 
(Shane’s recommendation).

12  Whether we maintain the Service MDE (Shane 
believes that we eliminated it).

I hope that most of you will be able 
to participate.

John 
M. Greacen
Greacen 
Associates, LLC
HCR 


505-289-2164
505-289-2163 
(fax)
505-780-1450 
(cell)














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

--

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