legalxml-courtfiling — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Second unresolved agenda item
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] Second unresolved agenda item
- From: "Dallas Powell" <[email protected]>
- To: <[email protected]>,"Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <[email protected]>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 23:19:22 -0600
|
Scott,
You are correct we do not have a functional
requirement that represents what I am saying. The current requirements
only deal with the payload information and not the requirements at the
application level. In the New Orleans meeting we stated several times that
the requirements are not complete and we will find more. Here is my
proposal for an application level functional requirement:
A Clerk Review MDE must be able to support
more than one CMS, and each CMS may have a different court policy and
extensions. This condition could easily occur when a single state
wide Clerk Review MDE supports multiple court locations with different CMS
systems. Some courts will need different extensions, and some will have
different policies and we cannot force them to be the same just because they are
going through the same Clerk Review MDE.
Some of the discussion from our current
requirements have debated whether to create a method of extending the basic
LegalXML Blue schema to allow for court specific extensions or whether we
force the court specific extensions to exist in a separate XML document
instance. The application requirement I just proposed above relates to this
issue.
If we take the position of separating the basic
LegalXML Blue schema from court specific extensions then the LegalXML TC
has better control over the versioning of the Blue schema
and this may well impact the ability to test or certify some level
of interoperability. If we allow courts to extend the basic Blue
schema my reaction is that the control over the versions will be much more
difficult to manage and testing of interoperability is more
complicated.
When we send a Filing Review Message to a Clerk
Review MDE, we better know what version of Blue it conforms to, and I anticipate
we will have to support more than one version after a while, so perhaps that is
another functional requirement. In addition, I anticipate the court policy
versions will change more quickly than the Blue Schema and the separation
simplifies the level of testing at least for the Blue schema. I
suggest that the SOAP Header area is where all this occurs.
Dallas
|