RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes Octo ber23d

["Durham, Shane (LNG-CL)" <Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com>]

I generally concur with Dallas' assesment.

1.1 is frozen. Changes should be considered "1.something else".

With respect to the 'import' issue, I suggest "1.1.x" might be more
appropriate than "1.2"
Because..  ...the changes for import are only semantic. 

The rules for LegalXML message construction remain the same.
We are only changing the way we have written those rules.

The XML I validate against 1.1.x DTD, is also perfactly valid against the
1.1 DTD.
(I think)


What was it that we decided in Utah regarding version numbers?

"A.B"

To my recollection, something like this:

A change in A represents major incompatible changes.  Prior versions are not
compatible with current version.  Prior version evaluations and acceptablity
tests can not apply to the current version.

A change in B implies minor changes.  Prior version are compatible with the
current version.  Prior version evaluations and acceptablity tests only need
to be extended for the new version's additional features.


So, maybe.. I am suggesting a 'C' portion.  ( "A.B.c" )

A change in C implies DTD/Schema syntactic change only. The resulting XML
messages do not change content or structure. The current version is
compatible with prior version.  Prior version evaluations and acceptablity
tests are fully applicable to the current version.

- Shane


-----Original Message-----
From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:12 AM
To: john@greacen.net; Electronic Court Filing TC
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue - closes
October 23d


Currently the Court Filing 1.1 DTD as it stands has a few "place holders" in
it.  The change of any element definition in Court Filing 1.1 breaks what
might be called "a freeze", yet we know that the place holders mean that
something is not done.

The Court Filing 1.1 DTD by itself does not hinder us from using the
Response element at present because the Response element is of type ANY.
That means our enhanced response system functions properly based on the
Court Filing 1.1 DTD.  Adding to or removing from Court Filing 1.1 will
break what we have implemented.

The reason that I bring this up is because the same issue exists with
Digital Signatures.  The Court Filing 1.1 DTD has a "place holder" there as
well.   We evaluated the W3C DSig standard and utilized it as best we could
in the Court Filing framework, but Court Filing 1.1 is not complete in this
area either.

Another area that I fear that still needs consideration are the issues
surrounding payment information and how to protect the information properly.
I fear that any area that has not been exercised by implementation will
remain a "place holder".

If we want to strengthen our messages to the Courts then frozen means that
it will not change, but we may have to chance what we are telling the
courts.  If we do not, then confusing messages will begin to go forward as
to what  Court Filing 1.1 really is.  You then have to ask, what version of
Court Filing 1.1?

I recommend that if you change Court Filing 1.1 to include the enhancements
of Q&R you call it Court Filing 1.2, and when we add the enhancements for
Digital Signatures we call it Court Filing 1.3 and so forth for
modifications to payments.

What this tells the courts is that we are not going to confuse them, and
that if they don't care about certain features then they can feel
comfortable using Court Filing 1.1.

Dallas