RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test requirements for ECF1.1

[jkeane <jik@jkeane.com>]

Title: Message

Any way to separate out test components so we don't exclude a test site of this calibre?

 

 Many JusticeLink jurisdictions and the entire Federal CM/ECF system does not provide for case initiation from lawyers at this time.  If /when they move to LegalXML it would be a shame to leave all them out of a full test that requires case initiation.  In the US DoJ study of eFiling we used the term initial pleading and responsive pleading because their requirements were so different.  How would Washington state or other react to a separate test for these two components?

 

Jim

 

James I. Keane

JKeane.Law.Pro

20 Esworthy Terrace

North Potomac MD 20878

301-948-4062 F: 301-947-1176 (N.B.: NEW FAX NUMBER)

www.JKeane.com JIK@JKeane.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Krause, Catherine [mailto:Catherine.Krause@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 4:23 PM
To: Court Filing List
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test requirements for ECF 1.1

Overall, I support the proposed interoperability test criteria and the proposed ECF 1.1 spec test criteria for interoperability testing.  Great work!

I would like the TC to be aware that King County, Washington would like to offer to be one of the courts involved in the ECF 1.1 interoperability tests, since we are implementing ECF 1.1.  But, the TC should also be aware that some of the criteria preclude us from being ready to participate in a test until (approximately) the 2nd half of 2003 at the soonest; specifically:

-- We have not included case initiation in the first phase of our project.  We do not anticipate utilizing the metadata relating to parties and attorneys until we implement case initiation.

-- Our court does not process attachments separately from lead documents, so in the initial phase of our project we are not utilizing the attachment metadata.  We do anticipate a need to utilize the attachment metadata when we implement XML documents.  But, we do not plan to implement XML documents as part of our project (other than in the simple BLOB form) until the Court Document standard is ready, including forms data (whether that is a separate specification from Document or part of same specification).

We will be able to provide a report on other test criteria as it becomes available if that is helpful to the TC, but we will not be prepared to participate fully until later phases of our project are completed.  We do not have the resources to implement functionality for the sole purpose of participating in the interoperability tests.

Sincerely,

Catherine Krause

E-Filing Project Manager

King County Department of Judicial Administration

(206)296-7860

catherine.krause@metrokc.gov

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 3:06 PM
To: Court Filing List
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test requirements for ECF 1.1

Please find attached the face to face meeting's proposal for defining the interoperability test criteria for the Electronic Court Filing 1.1 DTD and specification.  These requirements are specified within the context of the overall specification testing policy developed by a subcommittee chaired by Catherine Krause which the TC adopted after the Salt Lake City meeting.  (That policy was not submitted to the Joint Technology Committee because it required this further definition to set forth the testing requirements for the ECF 1.1 specification.)  I also attach that overall specification testing policy for your information.

Please provide your comments on the list by no later than Tuesday, October 15th.

Rolly Chambers is drafting this level of definition for testing of the Court Document 1.1 specification.
--
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC.
18 Fairly Road
Santa Fe, NM  87507
505-471-0203