[legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

This is from the minutes of the Salt Lake meeting:

*(TC)*
The Technical Committee Adopted the Electronic Court Filing 1.1 specification as a proposed committee specification for review by members of the Technical Committee, recognizing the specification has been frozen for use by implementers.  Comments submitted will be considered for incorporation into future versions of the specification.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dallas Powell wrote:

It was my understanding that we agreed in SLC that Court Filing 1.1 was a draft, not a recommended standard, which always creates risk for those implementing against it.
 
- We are deploying Court Filing 1.1 to all District Courts in Utah.  We have already initiated tests from selected attorneys.  We anticipate receiving live filings in October.  It took us 1 to 2 weeks to move our proprietary XML structures into Court Filing 1.0 to work with the Georgia interoperability test.  It took another week for us to modify our system to support Court Filing 1.1 . 
 
I think most people agree that Court Filing 1.0 was not the best, Court Filing 1.1 is not much different, and many agree with the need to create Court Filing 2.0.  We certainly don't want to spend all our time changing the structure embedded in a filing transmission, but we do realize that changes will occur and need to occur. 
 
My understanding is that the draft needs to be tested in more interoperability tests, which may or may not cause further changes.  I suppose that our agreement to freeze the draft is in an effort to allow interoperability tests to move forward and not to force the draft into a recommendation.  If we don't support the interoperability process, then what value is the standard?  We end up isolate
[message truncated]