Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability SOW

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

Although the information that I currently have was received outside an NDA,
I would not share it without their permission.  I have not yet asked, but
Dwight, can you tell us the position of BearingPoint on sharing this
information?

Dallas

----- Original Message -----
From: "jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
To: <jmessing@law-on-line.com>; <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>;
"Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability SOW


> I agree that requirements of an RFP can be very useful. On the other hand,
knowing what worked as opposed to what did not work, and why, could be
invaluable to vendors and courts alike, if the lessons can be generalized.
>
> I wonder if the King County participants have a problem with sharing the
information.
>
> On a different point, I understood from the call we had that you have
already received information from BearingPoint. Can you share it?
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>
> Date:  Thu, 20 Mar 2003 09:58:17 -0700
>
> >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>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >