legalxml-courtfiling — archive

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Query and Response Specification - Ple aseReview by September 24t h

From: System
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:20:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Query and Response Specification - Ple aseReview by September 24t h

From: "Winters, Roger" <[email protected]>
To: "'Rowley, Moira'" <[email protected]>,"'[email protected]'"<[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 10:18:18 -0700

Title: Query and Response Specification - Please Review by September 24th

Comments:

In the Introduction and Section 4 on page 11 it says: "The Court Filing Technical Committee has identified a list of standard queries that it highly recommends courts support to facilitate electronic filing."

I believe "highly recommends" is understating the point we should be making. Doesn't the TC believe that the standard queries are a critical part of a successful electronic filing system and a vital aspect of the interoperability principle, so legal practitioners and other filers will be able to obtain useful information wherever they might be filing? The "standard queries" should be described as "essential" or "mandatory" standards, even though a particular court might not support one or more of them.

The functional standards adopted by the Joint Technology Committee were based in a forward-looking approach, calling "mandatory standard" many features that courts might not be in a position to implement now but that really need to be there in a properly-designed system. I think these queries are similar in stature-some courts will have to opt out due to their inability to support some of them, but all courts should consider them "standard" for electronic filing systems, so they realize that falling short of the standard means there is still work to be done to make their systems readily accessible by filers, like others complying with the same standards.

The word "privilege" is misspelled as "privilege" at least once (top of page 8). I will, of course, help with final editing once the spec is accepted and ready for posting at the appropriate stage of the TC's development process.

I am not sure I know how the TC has settled regarding use of the concept of "Actor" in data elements, e.g., "getCaseActorRole." That should be resolved as a "horizontal" issue that comes up in multiple specifications. (I personally have concluded that one does not necessarily have to be designated an "Actor" in order to be assigned or recognized as being in a "Role," whether a human or a thing. I can live with what the TC ultimately decides on this rather basic question.)

I am glad the Q&R is progressing and hope it comes out of the Face-to-Face improved and moving forward.

Roger Winters

Electronic Court Records Manager

King County
Department of Judicial Administration

516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609

Seattle, Washington 98104

V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906

[email protected]