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