legalxml-courtfiling — archive

RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: Agenda items for Tuesday telephone call

From: Robert DeFilippis
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 04:56:00 -0000

 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] RE: Agenda items for Tuesday telephone call




From: "Robert DeFilippis" <[email protected]>
To: "Carlson, Tom" <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>,"Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:50:30 -0700






Tom (All):
 
Our technical team had several follow-up questions to your re-cap but perhaps I should wait for the meeting minutes.
Do you know if the items you re-cap will be included in the minutes and when the minutes might be forthcoming?
 
Thank you in advance.
 
-Robert

________________________________

From: Carlson, Tom [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tue 2005-06-07 5:35 AM
To: [email protected]; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: Agenda items for Tuesday telephone call


Here's a quick re-cap of the extensions issue:
 
There are implementation difficulties with doing extensions via the approved XSTF/GTRI extension mechanism. So alternatives have been proposed. The alternatives would be easier to implement, but at the cost of possibly being non-conformant with the GJXDM. So, there are two questions raised:
 
1) Do we want to risk non-conformancy in the name of implementation ease. (Keeping in mind that non-conformancy could result in loss of funding for projects using Blue?)
2) If so, which alternative should we use?
 
The two alternatives proposed are:
 
1) Require implementations to group local extensions in a separate document, keeping the main document true-Blue.
2) Include catch-all elements in Blue to allow local extensions to be included in the main document. This could be as simple as an element structure to hold key-value pairs.
 
One question I still have is, why can't we use XSTF-style extension and have the implementations ignore extensions they don't support?
How would the alternatives posed be any easier or different?
 

________________________________

From: John M. Greacen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 6/6/2005 7:15 PM
To: 'Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee'
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Agenda items for Tuesday telephone call


We will address the following issues during tomorrow's conference call:
 
Local extensions to the Blue schema
 
Use of the entity seal and its inclusion as a mandatory or recommended feature of the specification
 
How we handle IP policies in all incorporated standards
 
The official name for Blue - "Blue" was a provisional name assigned until we were ready to assign a version number.  Is this ECF 2.0 or ECF 3.0?
 
Whether we need to define additional messages for service
 
How Court Filing Policy will be addressed
 
Everyone with a stake in how these issues are resolved should plan to participate in the call.
 
 
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]
 













[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]