I agree that level 1 and 2 are
easily grouped together. In the Georgia Interoperability test, all
vendors conformed to a single response because that is what the first installed
EFM did. We were never able to test our specific responses. I
realize that since we only participated at the end of the test we were not able
to introduce our behavior so it is not fair to say that they would not have
tried with more time.
Level 3 was tested in the Georgia
interoperability test without level 4 filing fees. In fact, as I recall
only case initiation was tested, no updates. You are right usually the
case initiation requires fees, but being able to test to see if the elements
carried enough information to deal with a CMS is a good test on its own.
The elements in the current DTD do not provide enough information to determine
whether the courts should charge, or whether some ASP should charge and how the
information is forwarded, to what merchant account, etc. Also, I am
concerned about the security of the credit card information stored in the
envelope. All of these issues are what compelled me to propose these be
separated from a test that loads the CMS.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October
17, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test requirements for ECF 1.1
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