[legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes October 23d

[John Greacen <john@greacen.net>]

We have set ourselves a tight timeframe for concluding work on the Query 
& Response specification.  Shane and Dallas have had an interesting 
exchange on the list.  Rolly has provided his comments.  I would like to 
test the sense of the TC as a whole on the issues that Shane and Dallas 
have discussed.

In Boston, the face to face agreed to reuse complex elements from the 
Court Filing 1.1 specification where they are applicable for the 
structure of a Response.  This would aid developers who had already 
written code for Court Filing.

Shane proposes to accomplish this by "importing" from the Court Filing 
1.1 DTD into the Q&R DTD.  Rolly and Dallas would prefer to import the 
Q&R DTD into the Court Filing 1.1 DTD. Dallas's purpose would be to 
acquire the capability in Court Filing 1.1, via the Q&R DTD, to provide 
more, and more elaborate, "confirmations" from the court to an efiler, 
including "documentTitle, authorization codes for master card, amounts 
charged, Judge assigned to the case, error messages and so forth."

Would it be consistent with our decision to "freeze" Court Filing 1.1 to 
  revise that specification to import the Q&R DTD into Court Filing 1.1?

Can the Q&R specification be used as it has been designed so far to send 
a "Response" to a "filing" rather than to a "Query"?

I will definitely add Dallas's statement of need to the list of Court 
Filing 2.0 requirements.  Is there anything else that we can do today, 
given our deadline of Nov. 4th to finish Q&R, to meet his needs?

Does anyone else have anything to add to Shane's proposal to "import" 
from Court Filing into Q&R?

Please respond by COB on Wednesday, October 23rd.

-- 
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC
HCR 78, Box 23
Regina, New Mexico 87046
505-289-2164
505-780-1450 (cell)
john@greacen.net