legalxml-courtfiling — archive

Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call

From: Scott Came
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 15:37:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call

From: "Scott Came" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT)

John and TC, a quick clarification...

My position with respect to changing GJXDM element and type definitions is that an argument **could be** made that such an approach leads to non-conformant schemas.� I don't know specifically whether any XSTF members **will** make such an argument.

Further, I think that altering GJXDM definitions raises a much more serious conformance question than the prohibition of further extensions of the Blue message schemas.� If the TC is concerned about the latter, it should probably be more concerned about the former.

I believe the range of definitional changes that you can make to a type or element without changing the semantics is fairly small.� It is certainly possible to change definitions in a way that maintains consistency with the intent of the original definitions, especially if we have the participation of people who were involved in the writing of the originals.� However, I think we should recognize that this is a slippery slope:� does the practice of changing GJXDM definitions to suit the needs of a particular exchange or schema design scale?� Would we advocate that anyone designing a GJXDM schema change the definitions in a way consistent with their interpretation of the intent of the element?� I think in general an argument could be made that this hinders interoperability.

I am not opposed to the practical approach of:� (a) changing the definitions as John suggests below, (b) documenting very clearly where we have done so, and (c) submitting our altered definitions to XSTF for consideration in a future version of GJXDM.� We can move forward assuming that XSTF will accept our altered definitions, given the level of court semantic expertise on this TC.� In the worst case, if any of the definitional changes are rejected at XSTF, we can fallback on an approach of defining Blue-specific elements in our extension schemas later.

Thanks.
--Scott

> We will hold an hour and a half teleconference from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm on
> Tuesday, May 24, 2005 to discuss the Court Filing Blue message types.
>
> Remember that we are using the LexisNexis Meeting Place application to
> support this meeting. Please log onto that site, following Don's
> instructions, and dial into the conference call as well.
>
> If we have additional time, we will address the architecture of the Court
> Filing Blue message envelope structure (see minutes of May 17th conference
> call). I do not believe the either the DSS Entity Seal nor the
> extendability of the Court Filing Blue schema(s) is ripe for discussionA
> detailed agenda will be distributed prior to the meeting.
>
> The details for next Tuesday's call are set forth below.
>
> Leader's Name: John Greacen
> Day/Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2005
> Time of call: 1:00 to 2:30 pm Eastern time
> Conference Dial-in: 512-225-3050
> Conference Guest Code: 84759#
> Number of lines needed: Anticipated Total = 40
> Duration of the call: 1 Hour
> Leader's Phone Number: 505-780-1450
>
> Please review the attached document from the subcommittee to review the
> comments on the Court Filing Blue Message Types. Be prepared; it is a long
> document - roughly 25 pages when printed. Please find time if possible to
> review it before the teleconference. The subcommittee report recommends TC
> action on each comment, including the items listed below for discussion by
> the full TC. Any member may ask that any of the subcommittee's
> recommendations be set for discussion by the full TC on this or a future
> teleconference.
>
> Proposed agenda
>
> 1. Suggested resolution of the issues concerning Court Filing Blue, UBL
> and GJXDM semantics. We have discovered what others have found in trying to
> use the GJXDM as written: the element definitions are poorly and often
> incorrectly worded from a legal standpoint. GTRI has stated that if any
> user changes any of the definitions, they should define a new element in
> their own namespace. The only entity with the authority to change an
> element definition is the XSTF. We cannot wait for the XSTF to change the
> definitions of all the elements we find inartfully worded for our purposes.
> The subcommittee suggests that we create our own definitions applicable in
> our domain for GJXDM elements when the semantic content of the element
> remains the same as in the GJXDM, while submitting our proposed
> redefinitions for approval by the XSTF. A couple of examples suffice - Case
> Initiating Party Person, Case Initiating Party Organization, and Case
> Initiating Party Property are all defined exactly the same. The definition
> of Case Initiating Party Person states that the initiator of a criminal case
> is the victim; in a court it is almost always the State. We can correct the
> definitional problems for applying these elements in our context - with
> complete confidence that we are using the elements as intended by the GJXDM.
> Scott Came points out that some members of the XSTF will consider our
> specification non-compliant with the GJXDM if we follow this course.
>
> 2. Proposed domain specialist UML working session to develop a strawman
> schema(s) - Tom Clarke and I recommend that we convene a small group of
> domain experts together with two GJXDM-knowledgeable technical experts to go
> through the process followed by the Integrated Justice Technical Committee
> for developing GJXDM reference documents. We have asked Terrie Bousquin,
> Robin Gibson, Roger Winters and me to meet with Scott Came and Jim Cabral in
> Seattle for two days on June 2 and 3 to prepare a document for review by the
> TC face to face meeting in Atlanta on June 6 to 8. I have sought LegalXML
> Member Section funding to support the travel costs for the three team
> members not from Seattle. I will ask the TC to ratify this process.
>
> Specific Issues concerning the Message Types
>
> 3. How do we handle "interested persons" -- non-parties who become
> related to a case? Do we need to define a new party type (or the full range
> of Person, Organization, and Property types) to refer to these "non-party
> parties?" See Greacen comment to line 130.
>
> 4. Whether Court Filing Blue will support the transmission of
> information on changes to parties and attorneys in XML or require that these
> by handled traditionally, such as by motions for withdrawal or substitution
> of counsel. See Durham comment to line 132.
>
> 5. Can queries be addressed to MDEs as well as to courts? See Durham
> comment to line 168.
>
> 6. Why include a Policy Reference URI in response messages? Do we need
> a separate Get Policy Query? See Durham comment to line 175.
>
> 7. We need to clarify the distinction between Get Filing Status and Get
> Filing. What is returned in the response to each? Is the filing status
> returned in Get Filing? If so, why have a Get Filing Status query? Are the
> documents and attachments returned in Get Filing? If not, why isn't Get
> Filing Status sufficient by itself? See comments to lines 181 through 196.
>
> 8. What is returned in the response to a Get Filing List query? See
> Durham comment to line 192 and 201.
>
> 9. In New Orleans we agreed that the Get Case query should support
> limitations of the data to be returned from the court's docket or register
> of actions. Shane Durham asks whether an xpath statement is a reasonable
> way to do that and suggests instead that we define a standard set of limited
> queries, including selection criteria for getting cases, getting
> participants in cases and getting docket or register of action information.
> Can we accomplish this within the time available for releasing Court Filing
> Blue? See Durham comments to line 209.
>
> 10. What is returned in the response to the Get Case List query? See
> Durham comments to line 221.
>
> 11. In eService, how do we handle the distinction between service on
> attorneys for parties and service on the parties themselves if they do not
> have attorneys? See second Greacen comment to line 248.
>
> 12. Do we need to specify additional messages for
>
> a. Transmitting service information, including the documents to be
> served, to the Service MDE and
> b. Transmitting information from the Service MDE to the court to
> indicate that service has been completed?
>
> See last Greacen comment to line 248
>
> 13. The architecture of the Court Filing Blue message envelope structure
> (see minutes of May 17th conference call) - Scott Came and Eric Tingom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John M. Greacen
> Greacen Associates, LLC
> HCR 78 Box 23
> Regina, New Mexico 87046
> 505-289-2164
> 505-289-2163 (fax)
> 505-780-1450 (cell)
> [email protected]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php