[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test requirements for ECF1.1
In Nebraska, criminal cases (and especially traffic) certainly do have
filing fees associated with a filing. Although some, but not all, may be
waived the fees are recorded and accounted for at filing. Perhaps Nebraska
is unique in this regard. The "all inclusive" standard should allow for
filing fees in all cases.
Ron Bowmaster
State of Nebraska
David Goodwin -
ICJISX To: "'Krause, Catherine'" <Catherine.Krause@METROKC.GOV>,
<dagoodwi@mail.ma 'Dallas Powell' <dpowell@tybera.com>,
ricopa.gov> Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov, john@greacen.net,
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
10/18/2002 01:25 cc:
PM Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test
requirements for ECF 1.1
Criminal cases do not have filing fees. An electronic filing pilot between
a prosecutor and a court could be a good first step for a court because of
the controlled environment.
David Goodwin
Business Analyst
Maricopa County ICJIS
602-506-1512
dagoodwi@mail.maricopa.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Krause, Catherine [mailto:Catherine.Krause@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:33 PM
To: 'Dallas Powell'; Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov; john@greacen.net;
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test
requirements for ECF 1.1
I (unfortunately) haven't had time to review Dallas' original
proposal regarding conformance levels, but I agree with his
suggestion below that case initiation should be a separate
conformance level from filing fees (so, I concur that level 3 & 4
should remain separated).
We are specifically planning to first implement initiation of cases
via an e-filing with those case types that do not require a filing
fee, postponing the need to integrate an e-commerce component into
our system. We felt we would like to deal with the complexities of
case initiation prior to introducing additional complexity of filing
fees (the types of issues Dallas notes in his message).
Catherine Krause
E-Filing Project Manager
King County Department of Judicial Administration
(206)296-7860
catherine.krause@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:24 PM
To: Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov; john@greacen.net;
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability test
requirements for ECF 1.1
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.
Dallas
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov
To: dpowell@tybera.com ; john@greacen.net ;
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
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.
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC