I agree with Catherine's points. Also I do have a preference whether
Q&R gets imported into CF 1.1 or vice versa, but I definitely can live with
either of the alternatives. In the end, either approach will be fine.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:39
PM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Resolution of Q& R issue - closes Octo ber 23d
I concur with Shane's assessment below regarding version
numbering. It makes sense to number our specs as 1.1.x if the only
change is to replace placeholders with an import from another
specification.
If as Shane suggests it could be done without negating
compatibility between CF 1.1 and a CF 1.1.x, I support the concept of
importing the Q&R DTD into the Court Filing 1.1 DTD in the current place
holders for "query" and "response"; this was described by Rolly I believe as
using Court Filing as the "master" specification. If I understand
Shane's suggestion below, a version 1.1.1 could be used for an implementation
that imports the detailed query and response elements; a version 1.1.2 could
be used for an implementation that imported another place holder in 1.1,
etc. If, as Dallas suggests, a court wasn't interested in using the
imported elements, they would not need to do so.
We eventually will also have needs to including some of the
"response" elements as the result of a "filing" as Dallas has described;
returning case schedule information, judge assignments, payment confirmations,
etc.
On the other hand, if CF 1.1.x would not be compatible with CF
1.1, I am not in favor of importing Q&R into CF 1.1. I would then
support Shane's original proposal to import appropriate CF 1.1 elements into
Q&R, with Q&R being the "master" specification.
Diane suggested that we conclude this discussion during the
November 5th conference call and come to a consensus, which would then be
posted to the list per standard procedure. I support Diane's
suggestion.
Thanks,
Catherine Krause
E-Filing Project
Manager
King County Department of Judicial
Administration
(206)296-7860
catherine.krause@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From:
Durham, Shane (LNG-CL) [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:32 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing TC
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Resolution of Q& R issue -
closes Octo ber 23d
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
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>