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
I have revised this
document to address the issues raised by the two
people voting to not concur All specific items were directly
addressed. Two issues were indirectly addressed and they
are:
1. Is the Version 1
family of specifications provide a robust framework on which a policy
specification can rest. This was raised by both Chris and Shane. This will be
addressed in the Technical Committee Roadmap as per the following note in the
document.
Note: The decision of
the Court Filing Technical Committee to implement these requirements within a
specification as a whole or in part will be specified in the Court Policy
Technical Committee Roadmap. Any
phasing of these requirements shall be specified in the Court Policy Technical
Committee Roadmap. The choice is pending to suspend development or the Version 1
family of specifications giving Version 2 activities preference. This will be
reflected in the Court Policy Technical Committee Roadmap.
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
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
Attachment:
CourtPolicy20021105.doc
Description: MS-Word document
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC