Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability SOW

["Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>]

I am sure there are limits on what information can be distributed when
difficult situations exist and we need to be careful to not put a court in
an uncomfortable position.  What may be of value to our community is to ask
if the courts are willing to give copies of old and new RFPs to the TC.
This would allow the process modeling and interoperability committees to
understand what the courts are asking for.  Responses can frequently propose
alternatives to an RFP but understanding requirements is valuable.

Dallas

----- Original Message -----
From: "jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
To: <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 4:34 PM
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability SOW


> I agree that there is no need for formal minor changes to the SOW to stand
in the way of beginning work.
>
> With regard to the King County project that was apparently not
successfully implemented, is it possible for the reasons for that
happenstance to be provided to this subcommittee as part of the information
that is to be considered by it?
>
> It seems that "operability" as a first instance is highly relevant to
"interoperability" issues. If we can learn what went wrong with this
project, perhaps it will provide useful lessons about what to do in the
future that will likely work for everyone.
>
>
> I think some changes to the wording of the SOW might be appropriate if it
is possible to get these materials, but again, I don't think that should be
a cause for delay.
>
> ===================================================================
> A few minor corrections are needed in the document:
>
> - Under "proposed author(s) of the work, Roger Winters and I are listed as
having experience implementing Electronic Court Filing 1.0.  The attempted
implementation we were involved in was for Court Filing 1.1.
>
> - It might be misleading to state we are "experienced in implementing" --
perhaps it would be better to state that we "participated in an attempt to
implement" or something like that.  The ECF 1.1-based system delivered to us
by a vendor was not accepte
> d by us, so it was never implemented into a production environment.  We
own the Requirements and Design documents on which that system was based,
but we do not own or have access to the code, since we didn't accept the
system.
>
>
> Otherwise, the SOW looks great.  I do not feel these minor edits should
hold up approval of the SOW by the TC.
>
>
> Catherine Krause
> E-Filing Project Manager
> King County Department of Judicial Administration
> (206)296-7860
> catherine.krause@metrokc.gov <mailto:catherine.krause@metrokc.gov>
>
>
>