RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Query and Response Specification - Ple aseReview by September 24t h

["Taylor, Steven (CAA)" <Steven.Taylor@courts.sa.gov.au>]

Title: Query and Response Specification - Please Review by September 24th

Dear All,

 

Continue the good work on this Spec. As a voice from afar - Australia, what you have done would seem to fit our situation as well.

 

My comments on the Issues & Notes

 

Segregating Normative Queries - Agree and do it sooner rather than later

Sub-elements or attributes - prefer Sub-elements but not wedded to them

totalParameters - why have this, it just seems like an unnecessary overhead

responseRow - as long as we stay in synch with Court Filing

getActorRole - this seems to be the subject of some discussion at the moment, so may be we let some "water flow under this particular bridge" before committing

getCaseActorList - Yes put this in the normative queries

Authentication - I am in 2 minds on this as I think we will need to carry optional elements for authentication, but yet I do not know what the privileges will be or the number of different privileges. We are just going through this body of work at the moment and we are currently envisaging 7 levels of privilege (which seems a lot - hopefully we can cut it down). Of course this could vary greatly from one state to another, and one country to another. This makes it difficult to have any level of specificity at this stage.

Security - I would prefer that this is not in the Q/R Specification. Its best left out with a note stating so at the front of the Spec.

 

No further comments on the Standards Draft it looks good.

 

Steven Taylor

Project Director

e-Business Transformation

Courts Administration Authority

South Australia 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rowley, Moira [mailto:Moira.Rowley@acs-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, 13 September 2002 5:36
To: 'legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Query and Response Specification - Please Review by September 24t h

The CMS API subcommittee submits to the Court Filing Technical Committee for your consideration the attached documents.

1. Query and Response Specification
2. Issues and Notes Document
   

There are a handful of issues that we are referring to the larger group for consideration and response. Please note that this is the same structure that we will use for the CMS API.  That requirement was not considered or included when the CMS API requirements documents was written, as the Query work was then being undertaken by a separate group.  But it makes sense, and we worked under that assumption in reviewing and editing this specification.

We extend our thanks to Dwight Daniels for agreeing to take on the job of completing this specification - picking up the project from Marty Halvorson.  Dwight patiently worked through many issues with the subcommittee and updated the specification several times to accommodate the group's decisions.

Please post your comments and suggestions by Tuesday September 24, so we can have everything ready for final approval at our October Face to Face meeting in Boston.  Thank you.

Moira Rowley
Dwight Daniels
Shane Durham
Tom Smith
Christopher Smith
Gloria Diaz

<<QueryAndResponseStandardDraft2002_08_20.doc>> <<QnRIssuesForTC_082702.doc>>