RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02

FYI.  During Springboard testing of Tyler’s solution, we have found the need to optionally associate payments with the ServeFiling and RecordDocketing messages.  But I’m not sure we want to be extending messages with an errata.  Thoughts? __ Jim Cabral 502 509-4532 From:   Dallas Powell Sent:  ?Wednesday?, ?April? ?1?, ?2015 ?4?:?51? ?PM To:   Dallas Powell , James McMillan , Gary Graham , James E Cabral Cc:   [email protected] What this means is the receipt shows what is owed not paid.   Dallas   From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dallas Powell Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:39 PM To: McMillan, Jim; Graham, Gary; James E Cabral Cc: [email protected] Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02   Another interesting payment issue we have bumped into is in appellate courts where they just simply allow the filer to not payment at the time of filing.   The court fees are due but the appellate court functions on the idea that they want the case information now and they will worry about payment later.  No waiver reason is passed.   Dallas   From: McMillan, Jim [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:43 PM To: Graham, Gary; Dallas Powell; James E Cabral Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02   Glad to see it wasn’t “that” dumb of a question.  J   From: Graham, Gary [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:39 PM To: Dallas Powell; McMillan, Jim; James E Cabral Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02   ECF PaymentMessage   How should the ECF deal with filings (like criminal case documents from the prosecutor) that have no payments?  Another example would be filings from another government agency such as social or children services?     You also have waivers and pay at counter.  Pay at counter comes up when you have mandated Pro Se filers and they don’t have a credit card, or checking account, and they bring in pre paid cards, cash, and whatever to get it going.     The cardinality of messages in ECF is unclear.   For example, in section C.2.1 Provided Operations, the following is included:     The Filing Review MDE provides the following operations to other MDEs: Operation Called By Output Parameters ReviewFiling Filing Assembly MDE xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd :  MessageReceiptMessage xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CoreFilingMessage.xsd :  CoreFilingMessage xsd/message/ECF-4.0-PaymentMessage.xsd :  PaymentMessage   I have always interpreted this to mean:   MessageReceiptMessage = ReviewFiling(CoreFilingMessage, PaymentMessage)     As such, the call to the ReviewFiling operation requires a CoreFilingMessage argument and also requires a PaymentMessage argument (and does not allow multiple messages of either kind, e.g. maxOccurs=”1”).   This interpretation is supported by the WebServices SIP wsdl available from ECF as shown in the extract below:   < xsd:complexType name =" ReviewFilingRequestMessageType ">                 < xsd:annotation >                                 < xsd:documentation > Multi-part message type (required for conformance with WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 </ xsd:documentation >                 </ xsd:annotation >                 < xsd:complexContent >                                 < xsd:extension base =" ecf:ElectronicFilingMessageType ">                                                 < xsd:sequence >                                                                 < xsd:element ref =" core:CoreFilingMessage "/>                                                                 < xsd:element ref =" payment:PaymentMessage "/>                                                 </ xsd:sequence >                                 </ xsd:extension >                 </ xsd:complexContent > </ xsd:complexType > < xsd:element name =" ReviewFilingRequestMessage " type =" ReviewFilingRequestMessageType ">                 < xsd:annotation >                                 < xsd:documentation > Multi-part message (required for conformance with WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 </ xsd:documentation >                 </ xsd:annotation > </ xsd:element >   So since a PaymentMessage is required, and when there is no payment, how should this be handled with ECF?     In Arizona, we address this by using what is essentially an ‘inert’ PaymentMessage. Here’s an example:   Example 6 – No Fees This example shows a submission where no fees apply to the submission, e.g. Criminal case type submission.       < aoc:PaymentMessage xmlns:payment =" urn:oasis:names:tc:legalxml-courtfiling:schema:xsd:PaymentMessage-4.0 " xmlns:cbc =" urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonBasicComponents-2 " xmlns:cac =" urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2 " xsi:schemaLocation =" urn:oasis:names:tc:legalxml-courtfiling:schema:xsd:PaymentMessage-4.0 ../xsd/message/ECF-4.0-PaymentMessage.xsd ">         < payment:FeeExceptionReasonCode / >         < payment:FeeExceptionSupportingText />         < payment:PayerName />         < aoc:AllowanceCharge >                 < cbc:ChargeIndicator > false </ cbc:ChargeIndicator >                 < cbc:Amount currencyID =" USD "> 0.00 </ cbc:Amount >         </ aoc:AllowanceCharge >         < cac:Address />         < cac:Payment />     </ aoc:PaymentMessage >       From: Dallas Powell [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:13 AM To: McMillan, Jim; Graham, Gary; James E Cabral Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02   You also have waivers and pay at counter.  Pay at counter comes up when you have mandated Pro Se filers and they don’t have a credit card, or checking account, and they bring in pre paid cards, cash, and whatever to get it going.   Dallas   From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of McMillan, Jim Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:05 PM To: Graham, Gary; James E Cabral Cc: [email protected] Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02   Gary – I like these but have a question.  How should the ECF deal with filings (like criminal case documents from the prosecutor) that have no payments?  Another example would be filings from another government agency such as social or children services?  I apologize if these are dumb questions. – Jim M   From: [email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ] On Behalf Of Graham, Gary Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:47 PM To: James E Cabral Cc: [email protected] Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02   The attached document contains some items for consideration for ECF 4.01 Errata 02.   From: James E Cabral [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:09 PM To: Graham, Gary Subject: Re: ECF 4.01 Errata 02   Gary,   It’s been a couple weeks.  Before we draft the errata,  you let me know what else you think we should include?   __ Jim Cabral 502 509-4532   From:   Gary Graham Sent:   ? Tuesday ? , ? March ? ? 17 ? , ? 2015 ? 10 ? : ? 16 ? ? AM To:   James E Cabral   Yes, thanks just been a bit busy.   There are a couple of other small items that I wanted to provide to the TC for consideration as well.   From: James E Cabral [ mailto:[email protected] ] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:38 PM To: Graham, Gary Subject: Re: ECF 4.01 Errata 02   Gary,   Did you get this?   __ Jim Cabral 502 509-4532   From:   James E Cabral Sent:   ? Thursday ? , ? March ? ? 12 ? , ? 2015 ? 4 ? : ? 48 ? ? PM To:   Gary Graham   Gary,   I saw on the minutes from the TC meeting Tuesday that you offered to look into Errata 02.  There is an action item assigned to me but I’m happy to have help if you are offering.   https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-courtfiling/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3736   The scope of the errata as defined in the action item includes:   Update specifications and schemas to reference new UBL 2.1 (now an OASIS standard) Update specifications and schemas to reference FIPS 180-4 (supercedes FIPS 180-2) Update contentIDs in Figure 2 to conform with RFC2392 (add brackets)   These changes should be pretty easy.   Is there anything else we need to consider for Errata 02?   __ Jim Cabral 502 509-4532