Dallas,
Here are some initial
reactions to your five proposed levels of interoperability.
1. I would
group Levels 1 and 2 as the basic conformance requirement. Without Level
2, half of the original business case (and most of the business case on the
court side) potentially goes away. The Georgia tests showed that
interoperability at Level 1 is not.
2.
I would group Levels
3 and 4 because most case initiation filings cannot be completed without a
filing fee.
This leaves you with
three meaningful conformance levels. I agree with the sequence for
achieving those conformance levels.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Dallas
Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:51
PM
To: John M. Greacen; Court
Filing List
Subject: Re:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test requirements for ECF
1.1
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.
Tybera Development Group,
Inc.
----- Original Message -----
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