legalxml-sc — archive

[Karl Best]

Perhaps a LegalXML Conformance TC could be formed in the member section to develop conformance test suite for the specs produced by the various LegalXML TCs? -Karl John Greacen wrote: > The Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee has developed the > following policy statement to deal with a problem reported by vendors ? > that courts are requiring them to certify that their products ?comply? > with our TC standards. Because those standards are still being tested, > we expect that implementers will modify and extend them in some ways. > The draft policy statement is intended to give vendors a way to respond > to such requirements, while increasing the likelihood that we will get > complete feedback from implementers on their experience with our > specifications. > > > > This statement is posted on the TC list for final comments by close of > business on Monday, June 9th. I would appreciate any comments that > other TC chairs might have ? within this same time frame. This is an > issue that every TC will have to face in the future. > > > > Implementation Policy Statement > > > > The specifications developed by this Technical Committee, and approved > as ?proposed standards? by the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee, > have not yet been recommended for approval as ?recommended standards? by > COSCA and NACM or OASIS because they are still undergoing > interoperability testing. The Technical Committee expects that > implementers will make significant modifications and extensions to these > specifications as they test them in specific operational settings. > > > > A number of courts have included in their procurement documents > requirements that an electronic filing application ?comply? with the > technical specifications approved by this Technical Committee or by the > COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee. Application vendors do not know > how to respond to such requirements. > > > > The Technical Committee hereby authorizes application providers to > represent that their products ?follow? one of more of this Technical > Committee?s specifications if all of the following statements are true: > > > > 1) the application in question uses XML substantially in > accordance with the structure and content of the Electronic Court Filing > 1.O, Electronic Court Filing 1.1, Court Document 1.1, or Query & > Response specification; and > > 2) all extensions are made in the manner called for by the > specification; and > > 3) the application provider has provided to the OASIS Legal XML Member > Section Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee an ?implementation > report? describing all modifications and extensions to the TC?s proposed > specification, together with a narrative statement of the reasons for > making those modifications and extensions. > > > > The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical > Committee will publish all ?implementation reports? along with the > proposed specifications on the OASIS website for the benefit of all > users of these specifications and for the purpose of furthering our own > understanding of the operational requirements for future versions of the > specifications. > > > > An application provider?s assertion should be in the form, ?[company or > court] asserts that [name of product] follows the OASIS Legal XML Member > Section Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee [name of > specification] as defined in the Technical Committee?s ?Implementation > Policy Statement? of [date], subject to the limitations set forth in > that policy statement.? > > > > Courts and other entities using products about which such assertions are > made should understand: > > > > - that the OASIS Legal XML Member Section > Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee specifications have been > approved as ?proposed standards? for the purpose of comment and > experimental implementation; their efficacy has not yet been > demonstrated through complete interoperability testing; they will > undoubtedly be refined and expanded beyond their current content before > they are suitable for ?recommended standard? status; > > - that the assertion that an application ?follows? > a Technical Committee specification is a statement by an application > provider; such statements are not reviewed or verified by OASIS, the > Legal XML Member Section, or its Electronic Court Filing Technical > Committee; none of the foregoing make any representations concerning the > accuracy of such assertions, nor any representations that > implementations that in fact ?follow? the current specifications will > successfully interoperate; > > - that the assertion that an application vendor has > provided an ?implementation report? to the Electronic Court Filing > Technical Committee can be verified by anyone to whom the assertion is > made by searching for the report on the OASIS website; and > > - that ?implementation reports? filed by > application providers also represent assertions by the providers; > neither OASIS, the Legal XML Member Section, nor its Electronic Court > Filing Technical Committee independently verify that the modifications > and extensions reported are in fact contained in the application or that > they are the only modifications or extensions contained in it. > > > > > -- ================================================================= Karl F. Best Vice President, OASIS office +1 978.667.5115 x206 mobile +1 978.761.1648 karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org