RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Query and Response Specification

Comments:

In the Introduction and Section 4 on page 11 it says: "The Court Filing Technical Committee has identified a list of standard queries that it highly recommends courts support to facilitate electronic filing."

I believe "highly recommends" is understating the point we should be making. Doesn't the TC believe that the standard queries are a critical part of a successful electronic filing system and a vital aspect of the interoperability principle, so legal practitioners and other filers will be able to obtain useful information wherever they might be filing? The "standard queries" should be described as "essential" or "mandatory" standards, even though a particular court might not support one or more of them.

The functional standards adopted by the Joint Technology Committee were based in a forward-looking approach, calling "mandatory standard" many features that courts might not be in a position to implement now but that really need to be there in a properly-designed system. I think these queries are similar in stature-some courts will have to opt out due to their inability to support some of them, but all courts should consider them "standard" for electronic filing systems, so they realize that falling short of the standard means there is still work to be done to make their systems readily accessible by filers, like others complying with the same standards.

The word "privilege" is misspelled as "privilege" at least once (top of page 8). I will, of course, help with final editing once the spec is accepted and ready for posting at the appropriate stage of the TC's development process.

I am not sure I know how the TC has settled regarding use of the concept of "Actor" in data elements, e.g., "getCaseActorRole." That should be resolved as a "horizontal" issue that comes up in multiple specifications. (I personally have concluded that one does not necessarily have to be designated an "Actor" in order to be assigned or recognized as being in a "Role," whether a human or a thing. I can live with what the TC ultimately decides on this rather basic question.)

I am glad the Q&R is progressing and hope it comes out of the Face-to-Face improved and moving forward.

Roger Winters

Electronic Court Records Manager

King County
Department of Judicial Administration

516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609

Seattle, Washington 98104

V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906

roger.winters@metrokc.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Rowley, Moira [mailto:Moira.Rowley@acs-inc.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 1:06 PM
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.

Query and Response Specification
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>>

legalxml-courtfiling message