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

[Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com>]

From our experience in the Georgia interoperability test, and as I read about other installations or the comments from other interested participants in a test, I became concerned what the success of an interoperability test really means.  Does the interoperability test imply that any court can rely on the standard to implement live filings if the test was a success?  What is the definition of a success?  Is a test declared a success if only portions of the filing process were tested?  (no case initiation, no fees, etc.)  OR, are we merely saying that the interoperability test has moved us closer to a more complete solution.  I think that if we break the interoperability test into smaller conformance tests then success of each level will have greater meaning.

 

The document that I have attached describes  5 levels of conformance testing.  Each level increases the complexities of interoperability.  It also exposes the issues at each level that we have seen as we progress with court filings.   Conformance levels such as these will allow a vendor to identify areas that they have tested against, and successfully conformed to or partial conformed to.  It also gives the Certification Sub-committee more identifiable areas to put certification policies in place.  I fear that trying to test everything, all at once will make it very difficult to identify failure points or levels of success.

 

Please accept the attached document as my input.

 

Dallas Powell

Tybera Development Group, Inc.

www.tybera.com

 

----- Original Message -----

From: John M. Greacen

To: Court Filing List

Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 4:05 PM

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
 

Attachment: ECF conformance test.doc
Description: MS-Word document