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] Timestamps
From:
To:
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:09:50 -0700
Title: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Timestamps
Robert,
>> The "creation" date time stamp...
...is what the Court here is using as determinative of the filing date, as requested and agreed upon by the Bar
Thanks for the insights into your courts' use of LegalXML's CreationTime.
This is the first occasion I have heard of a court functionally using that value.
Previously, I have only seen it used as a kind of debugging/tracing/warm-fuzzy mechanism.
All,
The value that Robert is describing corresponds to what I previously identified as:
AssemblyTimestamp- The time when the data was put together into an XML message.
In our last conference call, I think we concluded that we would not include this value in our messages.
Shall we reconsider that decision?
- It would be a very minor change to the spec.
- I feel it is a useful value that many developers and administrators would expect to be present.
- Robert has identified it as a value that some courts are using functionally.
- Robert also reminded us that it would be consistent (compatible) with the LegalXML 1.x spec's 'CreationTime'.
And, just for clarification, let's keep in mind, AssemblyTimestamp is functionally distinct from other values we have discussed:
AuthorizedTimestamp - When a user or process released the data to be transmitted.
We have agreed to add this to our BaseMessage.
ReceivedTimestamp - When the message was received by the recipient MDE.
SentTimestamp - When the message was sent by the sending MDE.
I do not advocate expressing this value in our messages.
Primarily for the reason that Robert noted: it would require that the message be changed everytime we send it.
- Shane Durham
LexisNexis
