legalxml-courtfiling — archive

Timestamps

From: Christopher Durham
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:40:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

legalxml-courtfiling message

Subject: Timestamps

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:44:31 -0700

Jim, et al,

Authorized Timestamp

The document that I posted on 9/26/2005 contains this working definition of what I have called 'Authorized Timestamp' (call it what-you-will).

The time when a user approved (released) a filing to be sent to the FilingReview process.

As we discussed on the conference call, this value could be generalized and made applicable to all messages. In that case, a generalized definition might be:

The time when a user or process approved (released) this message data to be transmitted to a recipient MDE.

The important aspect of the definition, it that we understand this value is not synonymous with 'MessageAssembled timestamp' (n/a), 'MessageSent timestamp', or 'MessageReceived timestamp', although, in some systems, these timestamps might all be equal.

FilingReviewedTimestamp

In that 9/26/2005 document, I suggested that we should have a place to express the time at which a clerk decided to accept or reject a filing. In that 9/26/05 document, I proposed this draft definition of FilingReviewedTimestamp:

The time when the FilingReview process (or user) decided that the filing was to be accepted or rejected (or, when it decided that the filing could not be reviewed at all)

We did not discuss this proposed value in today's conference calls, but, to be honest, I think there would've been little support for this value - it is more of a 'nice to know' than a 'need to know'.

But WAIT!!.... I think it might be a freebie:

If we agreed to make 'Authorized Timestamp' a member of *all* of our messages...

...and also agreed to the functional definition I proposed above (or something akin to it)...

....then the FilingReview_Callback message's 'Authorized Timestamp' would represent the 'FilingReviewedTimestamp'. We would have our bases covered.

How's that sound?

- Shane Durham

From: John M. Greacen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 11:09 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Conference call continuation

Friends – I just touched base with . To stay on our timeline, we must resolve the remaining issues today. Consequently, I have scheduled a further conference call for 4:00 pm Eastern, 1:00 pm Pacific time this afternoon.

The call information remains the same:

Call in number 1-605-528-8855

Access code 2892164

We will resolve the remaining issues set forth below:

7. Whether we need a FilingAuthorized Timestamp – the time when a user approved (released) a filing to be sent to the filing review process (Shane’s recommendation).

8. Whether we need a FilingReceived Timestamp – the time when the filing review MDE received (lodged) a filing in addition to the originalMessageReceipt date and time (Shane’s recommendation).

9. Whether we need a FiledTimestamp – the legally effective date assigned to a filed document (Shane’s recommendation).

10. Whether we need a DocketingReceived Timestamp – the time when the court record process receives a docketing (Shane’s recommendation).

11. Whether we should adopt a model for person-organization relationships that is independent of the model used by GJXDM (Shane’s recommendation).

12 Whether we maintain the Service MDE (Shane believes that we eliminated it).

I hope that most of you will be able to participate.

John M. Greacen

Greacen Associates, LLC

HCR

505-289-2164

505-289-2163 (fax)

505-780-1450 (cell)