MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
















legalxml-courtfiling message






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

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]








Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: [legalxml-courtfiling-policy] OASISLegalXML ECF Court Policy	Requirements document




From: "Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>
To: "'Smith, Christopher'" <Christopher.Smith@jud.ca.gov>,legalxml-courtfiling-policy@lists.oasis-open.org,"'legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org'"<legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 08:03:27 -0400









Given 
two votes to not concur, I am withdrawing this draft from consideration. I will 
post a timeline for reworking working this on the Court Filing Policy list on 
Monday.
 
Both 
Christopher Smith and Shane Durham raised good points that need addressing. 
I look forward to their participation in defining further 
action.
 
Regards,
 
Don

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Christopher 
  [mailto:Christopher.Smith@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 
  2002 11:36 AM
To: 
  legalxml-courtfiling-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Thomas. J. 
  Smith (E-mail)
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling-policy] OASIS LegalXML 
  ECF Court Policy Requirements document


  

  
I believe this is my 
  initial posting on this discussion group, so let me introduce myself 
  first.  My name is Christopher Smith of the California Administrative 
  Office of the Courts.  I am now the voting member for the California 
  AOC.    
  
 
  
I have concerns regarding 
  the inconsistent structure of the ECF Court Policy Requirements. There seems to be considerable 
  confusion about how Court Policy, CDC, and Query-Response are interrelated. 
  This document appears to define elements of CDC (it shouldn't), hypothesizes a 
  <getPolicy> query that does not exist in the latest version of the Query 
  and Response specification, and includes requirements for a 
  publish-and-subscribe capability that isn't in any version of the EFM-CMS API 
  requirements document. 
  
 
  
Additionally, there is 
  insufficient narrative describing the intent of each requirement and many 
  requirements are unclear or need further explanation.  Finally, these 
  Requirements do not include anything substantive on conformance and 
  interoperability test requirements, despite the proposal for such in Salt Lake 
  City and the work of the Washington State contingent since then. 
  
 
  
As I 
  have strong misgivings about the suitability of the document as the basis for 
  a useful specification, I vote to not accept it in its current 
  state.
  
 
  
Christopher 
  Smith
  
Information Services 
  Department
  
California Administrative Office of the 
  Courts
  
 
  
 
  
 












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

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]


  









Powered by eList eXpress LLC