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