[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: No Subject
----- Original Message -----
From: Cabral, James <mailto:jcabral@mtgmc.com>
To: Chambers, Rolly <mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
<mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
Rolly,
I appreciate your taking the time to carefully review the OXCI EFM
Architecture document. You raise some very good points and I my responses
align with the consensus below. But to respond to the points directly:
1. Service of documents on other parties
In my understanding, the OXCI Architecture is intended to provide a baseline
EFM for court filing that does not necessarily include service of filings on
other parties. It is well expected that vendors will provide other EFM
implementations with more functionality such as srevice of filings on other
parties. These products may or may not be based on the OXCI EFM. That is,
the OXCI Architecture does not specifically support this service but, as
Dallas Powell clearly points out, the Architecture could be extended fairly
easily to include it.
2. Proposed Court Filing XML Schema
The purpose of including the schema was simply to demonstrate how the Court
Filing 1.1 DTD might translate to a compatible schema and to demonstrate how
certain elements would change based on the design decisions. Tom Clarke and
John Greacen may have been premature in publicly calling this "Light Blue".
In my opinion, your suggestions for changes to the schema are right on the
money and should be incorporated in the CF Blue schema.
Jim Cabral
-----Original Message-----
From: jmessing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com
<mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com> ]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:08 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; Dallas Powell
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
What is described as the role of the Bar Association is not the practice in
any jurisdiction I am aware of. The attorneys in the case are responsible
for providing to all the other attorneys in the case the address by which
they are to be served by mail.
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:05:50 -0700
>I sent this response directly to Rolly, but perhaps others may be
>interested in the message.
>
>> Rolly,
>>
>> The OXCI document refers to the document "Architecture Models,
>> Business decisions, and Interoperability Issues"
>> http://www.tybera.com/E-Filing%20Architecture%20Models%20and%20Issues
<http://www.tybera.com/E-Filing%20Architecture%20Models%20and%20Issues>
>> .htm
>.
>> OXCI indicates that who ever implements OXCI needs to support all
>> models defined in this document. That being the case, if you look at
>> the last
>two
>> diagrams, (or the one I have included here) what those diagrams are
>> saying is that an attorney can install the exact same software the
>> court
>installs,
>> that is, an EFSP and an EFM. Therefor if two attorneys install this
>> software, they can then file, or serve documents onto each other. In
>> addition, an attorney's client can use the EFSP provided by the
>> attorney
>so
>> that the clients can file documents to the attorney. Then, if
>corporations
>> install the software, they can begin to exchange, file, serve...
>> documents onto each other. In reality, this model begins to create a
>> spiders web of installations with a complex method of managing how
>> multiple EFM installations control which EFSP installations can
>> submit information to each other, or even more specifically, what
>> types of filings each
>authorized
>> EFSP can submit. to the various EFMs.. It suggests that when a Judge
>> creates a ruling, they can initiate a filing back to the participating
>> attorneys. (Two way automation) Although the diagram represents this
>> behavior, these concepts were not within the initial scope of
>> original document. The original document was intended to demonstrate
>> to the TC
>that
>> there are multiple designs by which a court could interact with
>> attorneys.
>>
>> The model that is shown in the attached diagram is the architecture
>> that
>is
>> being implemented in Utah Court Filing 1.1 implementation. There are
>> attorneys and other state agencies preparing to install both an EFSP
>> and
>EFM
>> at their locations. However, it is my opinion that in order to
>> sustain a system that officially allows attorneys to serve each other
>> it will become the responsibility of the Bar Association to provide a
>> registry for the attorneys to indicate which attorneys support this
>> method of service. In the same fashion, it is the responsibility of
>> the Bar Association to
>publish
>> the official mailing address to serve documents on another attorney,
>> or in the case of Corporations, it will be the responsibility of the
>> Department
>of
>> Commerce to maintain a registry of companies who support the
>> interface to
>be
>> served electronically since the DOC licenses and maintains a registry
>> of companies and official addresses.
>>
>> I really don't believe OXCI intended to extend their design this far,
>> but that is the intent of the diagram.
>>
>> Dallas
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
>To: "Court Filing List" <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:17 PM
>Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>
>
>> I agree with Roger and Rolly that electronic service by the courts or
>EFSP's is a probable incentive to lawyers, depending of course on how
>it is handled. I understand "service" in this context to exclude the
>initial step of filing of a complaint and se
>> rvice of a summons, which presents different issues.
>>
>> Service of paper pleadings by mail is a thankless chore to most
>> lawyers.
>Eliminating it may immediately cut down the overhead of printing and
>mailing such documents by law firms, if no additional fees or very
>nominal ones are charged for the service.
>>
>> In my days of running the Pima County Justice Court small claims
>> project,
>I was impressed with the return receipt service of process that the
>court effectuated by postal mail for the nominal sum of $3.50 per case.
>The litigants were not lawyers, admitte
>> dly, but the convenience and efficiency of the process was greatly
>appreciated by the public and went far in helping the popularity of the
>court, with or without electronic filing.
>>
>> Service effectuated directly between lawyers can also generate a most
>frustrating class of dispute that service through the court or an EFSP
>may eliminate. Without telling tales out of school, consider the
>anectode of the lawyer who is often suspected o
>> f using the stamp of a postage meter in a mysterious way to make it
>> appear
>that a document was sent by US mail earlier than it really was. Or its
>cousin that relates the practices of a crafty lawyer who is known in a
>community for turning off the fax at
>> times to stymie the use of faxed service of documents by an
>> opponent. I
>imagine the use of junk email filters could be the next generation of
>devices lawyers could creatively put to use in such situations. Taking
>service out of the hands of the lawyers
>> and putting it with the courts or EFSP's could itself be a big
>> selling
>point to lawyers who have grown weary of such practices.
>>
>> I also appreciate the fine efforts of Mr. Cabral and his group in
>effectuating a very difficult task. I think the report was extremely
>professional and well-done.
>>
>> A common thread that I extract from the two previous comments is
>> whether
>we are in a position yet to give a complete and meaningful response
>about OXCI. As Rolly points out, we do not have the schema, and the
>report had to fashion a crude prototype usin
>> g XML Spy for its working assumptions. Also, the CMS-API workgroup
>> has not
>completed a piece that OXCI requires and assumes will be in place,
>which is the CMS-API. I do not blame anyone for this occurence. Some of
>the problems are hopefully being worked
>> out. In the absence of the API, I can only guess if the overall
>> system
>as envisioned can be made to work as intended.
>>
>> I am also unclear if the methods already used by some vendors will be
>facilitated or hindered by the envisioned architecture. I think their
>frank input is indispensible, and I would prefer to hear the results of
>Dallas Powell's interoperability subcommi
>> ttee on the differences in filing techniques between various vendors
>before finalizing any evaluation of the OXCI study. It seems that
>BearingPoint.com has certain methods that are being used in Texas;
>Tybera has others that are used in Utah, still othe
>> rs may be used by Mo Abdulaziz' court in Arizona; and there may be
>> others
>from LexisNexis in Colorado. Perhaps the cataloging of the similarities
>and differences will better arm us with specifics as a basis for a
>meaningful response to the OXCI group.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV
<mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV> ]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:42 AM
>> To: 'Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov'; 'rlchambers@smithcurrie.com';
>'legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org'
>> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>>
>>
>> At Tom's suggestion, I'll speak up about how the "Standards for
>> Electronic
>Filing Processes" treats service of filings. In the section on "Court
>Rules," "Standard 1.2A Service of Filings on Opposing Parties" (pages
>34-35 of the February 26, 2003 version
>> ) identifies electronic service as an "important incentive for
>> lawyers'
>use of electronic filing." Further, it says "the efficiency of the
>legal process will be enhanced by having service performed by the
>electronic filing process."
>>
>>
>>
>> The corresponding "Functional Standard 3.14: Service and Notice,"
>> (page
>91) in Subfunction 3.14.1 notes that providing this service is
>optional, not
>mandatory: "It is optional for each electronic filing system to provide for
>electronic notice and servic
>> e. When a court opts for this functionality, the system must provide
>> a
>proof of service record and a record of who is served electronically
>and who must still be served traditionally."
>>
>>
>>
>> The document from which this information is taken can be found at
>http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/Standards/Standards.htm#ElectronicFili
<http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/Standards/Standards.htm#ElectronicFili>
>ngPro
>cesses.
>>
>>
>>
>> Though not directly involved with the group who have been developing
>> OXCI,
>I will say I didn't expect OXCI to embody many, if any, of the optional
>functions and processes, including the electronic service function.
>This is not to say it isn't as importa
>> nt as Rolly indicates. In fact, his calling it out helps me
>> understand
>even more clearly how service and related functions (e.g., document
>exchanges not directly related to a filing) are probably going to be
>needed if we are to get substantial law firm
>> participation in our e-filing systems.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>> Roger Winters
>>
>> Electronic Court Records Manager
>>
>> King County
>> Department of Judicial Administration
>>
>> 516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
>>
>> Seattle, Washington 98104
>>
>> V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
>>
>> roger.winters@metrokc.gov
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov [mailto:Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov
<mailto:Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov> ]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:22 AM
>> To: rlchambers@smithcurrie.com;
>> legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>>
>>
>>
>> Rolly,
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't want to speak for MTG, but I do know something about the
>> intent of
>what they submitted.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the problems with the OXCI project is that they don't want to
>> set
>standards, they also don't want to do things that are obviously
>undesirable from an architectural viewpoint, and they don't want to be
>any more incompatible with projects building
>> on CF 1.1 than necessary. MTG attempted to compromise by absolutely
>minimizing the changes necessary to get from Court Filing 1.1 to a
>schema that is consistent with a web services approach to messaging.
>We jokingly called this "Light Blue" because we
>> knew the TC would want to go further with the real Blue.
>> Specifically,
>you would probably want to take better advantage of schema features, as
>you propose below, at the expense of backward compatibility with CF
>1.1.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think anyone involved with OXCI envisions implementing
>> service
>outside of the core architecture of Legal XML transactions. If that is
>not clear from the document, then we will need to clarify that for
>potential OXCI vendors. I believe an appro
>> ach implementing service and other notice types through the core
>> component
>set over the Internet, as opposed to separate noticing via email, is
>recommended by the COSCA/NACM national standard for e-filing. If I'm
>wrong about this, others involved in cr
>> eating that standard should speak up.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim Cabral from MTG is the actual author of the document, so he can
>> better
>respond to your specific suggestions.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chambers, Rolly [mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com
<mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com> ]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:55 PM
>> To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
>> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>>
>>
>>
>> I commend MTG and its contribution to the TC of the OXCI Electronic
>> Filing
>Manager Architecture. The design decisions have been thoughtfully
>considered and sound choices have been made.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have one question/comment regarding the architectural piece and a
>handful of comments/thoughts concerning the proposed Court Filing XML
>schema.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Architecture focuses on filings with a court appropriately
>> enough, but
>it was not clear how or whether the architecture also supports the
>service of filings by a filer on other parties or their attorneys.
>Procedural rules require me, as a lawyer, to
>> send (i.e. serve) other parties in a case with copy of pleadings,
>motions, or other filings that I submit to a court. Does the OXCI
>architecture support this service function or does it assume that
>lawyers will submit filings to a court electronically
>> via applications implementing the proposed architecture but then
>> serve
>copies of the filings on each other by some other means such as regular
>mail, hand-delivery, or email?
>>
>>
>>
>> A related question concerns whether the OXCI architecture supports
>> the
>service on other parties or their attorneys of documents that are not
>filed with a court such as discovery (interrogatories, requests for
>production of documents, deposition notices,
>> offers of judgment, etc.).
>>
>>
>>
>> The Court Filing XML schema apparently was generated by the DTD to
>> XML
>schema feature of XML Spy. Like similar DTD to XML schema applications,
>the result is a fairly decent XML schema. However, the resulting XML
>schema can be substantially improved and
>> made more useful by modest editing to add features available in XML
>schemas but not available in DTDs. Providing for the following in the
>proposed XML schema would be useful:
>>
>>
>>
>> XML namespaces - the proposed XML schema has no default or
>targetNamespace. An XML schema "best practice" is to declare the
>targetNamespace as the default namespace. This approach eliminates
>problems with element name collisions and other problems when
>> one schema, such as the Court Filing XML schema, is used with
>> another,
>such as the SOAP schema. Creating an XML namespace for the proposed
>Court Filing XML schema would improve its utility significantly.
>>
>>
>>
>> ANY content elements - the DTD to XML schema converter changed
>> elements in
>the DTD having ANY content (e.g. administrativeLaw, civil,
>domesticRelations, etc.), which can contain any of the other elements
>declared in the DTD, to elements having mixed con
>> tent, which can contain text and specifically declared elements. The
>> mixed
>content elements in the proposed XML schema, however, contain no
>declared elements. Thus, filings containing an element within <civil/>
>will be valid against the Court Filing DTD
>> , but not against the proposed XML schema. The wildcard component of
>> XML
>schema is capable of providing substantially the same function as ANY
>content in a DTD. Changing the "empty" mixed content elements in the
>proposed Court Filing XML schema to use X
>> ML schema wildcards would make the schema more equivalent to the DTD.
>>
>>
>>
>> Enumerated element values - XML schema allow the declaration of
>> enumerated
>values for elements in addition to attributes. Many of the elements
>(hairColor, eyeColor, race, etc.) in the Court Filing 1.1 DTD have
>required data values. Including such requi
>> red data values as enumerated element values in the proposed schema
>> would
>prevent problems that might occur if an element in a filing fails to
>contain the data value required by the Court Filing 1.1 spec.
>>
>>
>>
>> Datatyping - one of the major advantages of XML schema over DTDs is
>datatyping. There are built-in data types available in XML schema for
>date, time, integer, decimal, and others. It also is possible to
>declare datatypes for data items such as zip codes
>> or telephone numbers. The proposed Court Filing XML schema uses only
>> the
>string data type, but might be made more useful if other XML data types
>were used where appropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> I again commend MTG's contribution. Thanks for soliciting and
>> considering
>these suggestions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rolly Chambers
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Greacen
>> Sent: Mon 3/10/2003 6:16 PM
>> To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
>> Cc:
>> Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project
>>
>> I enclose a zipped file containing a report from MTG for OXCI
>> including a
>series of architectural recommendations for the OXCI product and draft
>schemas for court filing and query and response. The court filing
>schema incorporates ebXML messaging and t
>> he elements from the current version of the JXDDS. Those are two of
>> the
>objectives we have set for ourselves for Electronic Court Filing
>"Blue." OXCI is contributing these work products to this Technical
>Committee to use as we see fit. OXCI would als
>> o appreciate feedback on the architectural piece and on the schemas.
>>
>>
>>
>> John M. Greacen
>>
>> Greacen Associates, LLC
>>
>> HCR 78, Box 23
>>
>> Regina, New Mexico 87046
>>
>> 505-289-2164
>>
>> 505-780-1450 (cell)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl
<http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> >
--Boundary_(ID_zOVmB0CVcHWvrimy/V+2LQ)
Content-type: text/html
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1141" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Rolly,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I
apologize if my previous explanation for including the schema in the
OXCI Architecture was not clear. Let me try this
again.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The
focus of the architecture document is a number of design decisions.
We included the schema simply to show how those design decisions (e.g., use of
schemas, ebXML Messaging) would affect CF 1.1. Ultimately, I believe the
intention is that CF Blue will be based on the JusticeXML 3.0 Core schemas
and the Court Activity Object schemas. Fortunately, GTRI is already
incorporating support for namespaces and data types in these
schemas. However, I'm not sure if they are addressing the wildcard
issue. Perhaps this is something that the Court Filing representatives to
the GTRI process should address.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Does
this clarify?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=517211201-14032003><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>
Jim Cabral</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Rolly Chambers
[mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 13, 2003
4:45 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>Jim and others -</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for the informative responses. It is good to get a
clearer picture of what the OXCI Architecture includes and what it does
not. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>From my perspective, it would be great if the baseline OXCI Architecture
was extended to include service of filings (and documents that are required to
be served but not filed) on other parties. Roger Winters made the
point (better than I did) that including such functionality is important to
gaining law firm participation in e-filing. If moving the
baseline isn't practical, then it would be prudent to describe how the
baseline Architecture can be extended to provide "service of filings"
functionality.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As for the CF XML schema, I'm now a little unclear about its intended
purpose. If it is a "demonstrator" not intended for use, I agree that it is a
good illustration of how the CF 1.1 DTD might be translated into an XML
schema. If it is intended for use, however, I think the "XML namespace"
and the "ANY content - XML schema wildcard" issues ought to be cleared
up. Use of enumerated element values and data typing certainly can wait until
the later CF schema is created, although implementing those features need not
lead to any incompatibility between the proposed XML schema and the
CF 1.1 DTD.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>At any rate, what you have put together in the paper is excellent. I join
in John Messing's "well done."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rolly Chambers </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jcabral@mtgmc.com href="mailto:jcabral@mtgmc.com">Cabral, James</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=rlchambers@smithcurrie.com
href="mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com">Chambers, Rolly</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
title=legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
href="mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org">legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 13, 2003 5:28
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Contribution from OXCI project</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2>Rolly,</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>I appreciate your taking the time to carefully review the
OXCI EFM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Architecture document. You raise some
very good points and I my responses</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>align with the
consensus below. But to respond to the points directly:</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>1. Service of documents on other parties</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>In my understanding, the OXCI Architecture is intended to
provide a baseline</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>EFM for court filing that does
not necessarily include service of filings on</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>other
parties. It is well expected that vendors will provide other
EFM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>implementations with more functionality such as
srevice of filings on other</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>parties. These
products may or may not be based on the OXCI EFM. That is,</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>the OXCI Architecture does not specifically support this
service but, as</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Dallas Powell clearly points out,
the Architecture could be extended fairly</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>easily to
include it.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>2. Proposed Court Filing XML Schema</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>The purpose of including the schema was simply to
demonstrate how the Court</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Filing 1.1 DTD might
translate to a compatible schema and to demonstrate how</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>certain elements would change based on the design decisions.
Tom Clarke and</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>John Greacen may have been premature
in publicly calling this "Light Blue".</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>In my
opinion, your suggestions for changes to the schema are right on the</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>money and should be incorporated in the CF Blue
schema.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2> Jim Cabral</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>From:
jmessing [<A
href="mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com">mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com</A>]
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:08 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; Dallas
Powell</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Contribution from OXCI project</FONT> </P><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>What is described as the role of the Bar Association is not
the practice in</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>any jurisdiction I am aware of. The
attorneys in the case are responsible</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>for providing
to all the other attorneys in the case the address by which</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>they are to be served by mail.</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>---------- Original Message
----------------------------------</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>From: Dallas
Powell <dpowell@tybera.com></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Date: Thu,
13 Mar 2003 13:05:50 -0700</FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>>I sent this response directly to Rolly, but perhaps
others may be </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>interested in the message.</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Rolly,</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> The OXCI document
refers to the document "Architecture Models, </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> Business decisions, and Interoperability Issues"
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> <A
href="http://www.tybera.com/E-Filing%20Architecture%20Models%20and%20Issues">http://www.tybera.com/E-Filing%20Architecture%20Models%20and%20Issues</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> .htm</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>.</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> OXCI indicates that who ever implements OXCI needs
to support all </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> models defined in this
document. That being the case, if you look at </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> the last</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>two</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> diagrams, (or the one I have included here) what those
diagrams are </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> saying is that an attorney can
install the exact same software the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>>
court</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>installs,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
that is, an EFSP and an EFM. Therefor if two attorneys install this
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> software, they can then file, or serve
documents onto each other. In </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>>
addition, an attorney's client can use the EFSP provided by the
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> attorney</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>so</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> that the clients can file
documents to the attorney. Then, if</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>corporations</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> install the
software, they can begin to exchange, file, serve... </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> documents onto each other. In reality, this model
begins to create a </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> spiders web of
installations with a complex method of managing how </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> multiple EFM installations control which EFSP installations
can </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> submit information to each other, or
even more specifically, what </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> types of
filings each</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>authorized</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> EFSP can submit. to the various EFMs.. It suggests
that when a Judge </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> creates a ruling, they
can initiate a filing back to the participating</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> attorneys. (Two way automation) Although
the diagram represents this</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> behavior, these
concepts were not within the initial scope of </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> original document. The original document was intended
to demonstrate </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> to the TC</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>that</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> there are multiple designs
by which a court could interact with </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>>
attorneys.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
The model that is shown in the attached diagram is the architecture
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> that</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>is</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> being implemented in Utah Court Filing 1.1
implementation. There are </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> attorneys
and other state agencies preparing to install both an EFSP </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> and</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>EFM</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> at their locations. However, it is my opinion that in
order to </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> sustain a system that officially
allows attorneys to serve each other </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> it
will become the responsibility of the Bar Association to provide a
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> registry for the attorneys to indicate
which attorneys support this </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> method
of service. In the same fashion, it is the responsibility of
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> the Bar Association to</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>publish</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> the official mailing
address to serve documents on another attorney, </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> or in the case of Corporations, it will be the
responsibility of the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> Department</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>of</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Commerce to
maintain a registry of companies who support the </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> interface to</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>be</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> served electronically since the DOC licenses and maintains a
registry </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> of companies and official
addresses.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
I really don't believe OXCI intended to extend their design this far,
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> but that is the intent of the
diagram.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
Dallas</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>-----
Original Message -----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>From: "jmessing"
<jmessing@law-on-line.com></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>To: "Court
Filing List" <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:17 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from
OXCI project</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> I agree with Roger and Rolly
that electronic service by the courts or</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>EFSP's
is a probable incentive to lawyers, depending of course on how
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>it is handled. I understand "service" in this
context to exclude the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>initial step of filing of
a complaint and se</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> rvice of a summons,
which presents different issues.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> Service of paper pleadings by mail is a thankless
chore to most </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> lawyers.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>Eliminating it may immediately cut down the overhead of printing
and </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>mailing such documents by law firms, if no
additional fees or very </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>nominal ones are charged
for the service.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> In my days of running the Pima County Justice Court small
claims </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> project,</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>I was impressed with the return receipt service of process that
the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>court effectuated by postal mail for the
nominal sum of $3.50 per case. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>The litigants
were not lawyers, admitte</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> dly, but the
convenience and efficiency of the process was greatly</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>appreciated by the public and went far in helping the popularity
of the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>court, with or without electronic
filing.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
Service effectuated directly between lawyers can also generate a most</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>frustrating class of dispute that service through the
court or an EFSP </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>may eliminate. Without telling
tales out of school, consider the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>anectode of
the lawyer who is often suspected o</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> f using
the stamp of a postage meter in a mysterious way to make it </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> appear</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>that a document was sent
by US mail earlier than it really was. Or its </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>cousin that relates the practices of a crafty lawyer who is known
in a </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>community for turning off the fax at</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> times to stymie the use of faxed service of
documents by an </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> opponent. I</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>imagine the use of junk email filters could be the next
generation of </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>devices lawyers could creatively
put to use in such situations. Taking </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>service
out of the hands of the lawyers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> and
putting it with the courts or EFSP's could itself be a big </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> selling</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>point to lawyers who
have grown weary of such practices.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> I also appreciate the fine efforts of Mr. Cabral
and his group in</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>effectuating a very difficult
task. I think the report was extremely </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>professional and well-done.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> A common thread that I
extract from the two previous comments is </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>>
whether</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>we are in a position yet to give a
complete and meaningful response </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>about OXCI. As
Rolly points out, we do not have the schema, and the </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>report had to fashion a crude prototype usin</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> g XML Spy for its working assumptions. Also, the CMS-API
workgroup </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> has not</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>completed a piece that OXCI requires and assumes will be in
place, </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>which is the CMS-API. I do not blame
anyone for this occurence. Some of </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>the problems
are hopefully being worked</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> out. In
the absence of the API, I can only guess if the overall
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> system</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>as
envisioned can be made to work as intended.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> I am also unclear if the
methods already used by some vendors will be</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>facilitated or hindered by the envisioned architecture. I think
their </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>frank input is indispensible, and I would
prefer to hear the results of </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>Dallas Powell's
interoperability subcommi</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> ttee on the
differences in filing techniques between various vendors</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>before finalizing any evaluation of the OXCI study. It seems that
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>BearingPoint.com has certain methods that are
being used in Texas; </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>Tybera has others that are
used in Utah, still othe</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> rs may be used by
Mo Abdulaziz' court in Arizona; and there may be </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> others</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>from LexisNexis in
Colorado. Perhaps the cataloging of the similarities </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>and differences will better arm us with specifics as a basis for
a </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>meaningful response to the OXCI group.</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
From: Winters, Roger [<A
href="mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV">mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:42 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> To: 'Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov';
'rlchambers@smithcurrie.com';</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>'legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org'</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI
project</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> At Tom's suggestion, I'll
speak up about how the "Standards for </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>>
Electronic</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>Filing Processes" treats service of
filings. In the section on "Court </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>Rules,"
"Standard 1.2A Service of Filings on Opposing Parties" (pages
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>34-35 of the February 26, 2003 version</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> ) identifies electronic service as an "important
incentive for </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> lawyers'</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>use of electronic filing." Further, it says "the efficiency of
the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>legal process will be enhanced by having
service performed by the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>electronic filing
process."</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> The corresponding "Functional Standard 3.14: Service and
Notice," </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> (page</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>91) in Subfunction 3.14.1 notes that providing this service is
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>optional, not</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>mandatory: "It is optional for each electronic filing system to
provide for</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>electronic notice and servic</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> e. When a court opts for this functionality, the
system must provide </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> a</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>proof of service record and a record of who is served
electronically </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>and who must still be served
traditionally."</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> The document from which this information is taken can be
found at</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>><A
href="http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/Standards/Standards.htm#ElectronicFili">http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Tech/Standards/Standards.htm#ElectronicFili</A></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>ngPro</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>cesses.</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Though not directly
involved with the group who have been developing </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> OXCI,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>I will say I didn't expect
OXCI to embody many, if any, of the optional </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>functions and processes, including the electronic service
function. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>This is not to say it isn't as
importa</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> nt as Rolly indicates. In fact, his
calling it out helps me </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> understand</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>even more clearly how service and related functions
(e.g., document </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>exchanges not directly related
to a filing) are probably going to be </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>needed if
we are to get substantial law firm</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
participation in our e-filing systems.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Roger</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Roger Winters</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Electronic Court
Records Manager</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> King County</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Department of
Judicial Administration</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> 516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Seattle, Washington
98104</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> V:
(206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> roger.winters@metrokc.gov</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> -----Original
Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> From: Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov
[<A
href="mailto:Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov">mailto:Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:22 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> To: rlchambers@smithcurrie.com; </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI
project</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> Rolly,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> I don't want to speak for MTG, but I do know something about
the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> intent of</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>what they submitted.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> One of the problems with the OXCI project is that they don't
want to </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> set</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>standards, they also don't want to do things that are obviously
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>undesirable from an architectural viewpoint, and
they don't want to be </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>any more incompatible with
projects building</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> on CF 1.1 than
necessary. MTG attempted to compromise by absolutely</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>minimizing the changes necessary to get from Court Filing 1.1 to
a </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>schema that is consistent with a web services
approach to messaging. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>We jokingly called
this "Light Blue" because we</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> knew the
TC would want to go further with the real Blue. </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> Specifically,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>you would probably
want to take better advantage of schema features, as </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>you propose below, at the expense of backward compatibility with
CF </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>1.1.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> I don't think anyone involved with OXCI envisions
implementing </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> service</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>outside of the core architecture of Legal XML transactions.
If that is </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>not clear from the document, then we
will need to clarify that for </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>potential OXCI
vendors. I believe an appro</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> ach
implementing service and other notice types through the core
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> component</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>set
over the Internet, as opposed to separate noticing via email, is
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>recommended by the COSCA/NACM national standard
for e-filing. If I'm </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>wrong about this,
others involved in cr</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> eating that standard
should speak up.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> Jim Cabral from MTG is the actual author of the document, so
he can </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> better</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>respond to your specific suggestions.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> -----Original
Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> From: Chambers, Rolly [<A
href="mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com">mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 7:55 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> To: Electronic Court Filing Technical
Committeee</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from OXCI project</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> I commend MTG and its
contribution to the TC of the OXCI Electronic </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> Filing</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>Manager Architecture. The
design decisions have been thoughtfully </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>considered and sound choices have been made.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> I have one question/comment
regarding the architectural piece and a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>handful
of comments/thoughts concerning the proposed Court Filing XML
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>schema.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> The Architecture focuses on filings with a court
appropriately </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> enough, but</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>it was not clear how or whether the architecture also supports
the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>service of filings by a filer on other
parties or their attorneys. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>Procedural rules
require me, as a lawyer, to</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> send
(i.e. serve) other parties in a case with copy of pleadings,</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>motions, or other filings that I submit to a court.
Does the OXCI </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>architecture support this service
function or does it assume that </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>lawyers will
submit filings to a court electronically</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
via applications implementing the proposed architecture but then
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> serve</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>copies of
the filings on each other by some other means such as regular
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>mail, hand-delivery, or email?</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> A related question concerns
whether the OXCI architecture supports </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>>
the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>service on other parties or their attorneys
of documents that are not </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>filed with a court
such as discovery (interrogatories, requests for </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>production of documents, deposition notices,</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> offers of judgment, etc.).</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> The Court Filing XML schema
apparently was generated by the DTD to </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>>
XML</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>schema feature of XML Spy. Like similar DTD
to XML schema applications, </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>the result is a
fairly decent XML schema. However, the resulting XML </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>schema can be substantially improved and</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> made more useful by modest editing to add features available
in XML</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>schemas but not available in DTDs.
Providing for the following in the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>proposed XML
schema would be useful:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> XML namespaces - the proposed XML schema has no default
or</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>targetNamespace. An XML schema "best
practice" is to declare the </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>targetNamespace as
the default namespace. This approach eliminates </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>problems with element name collisions and other problems
when</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> one schema, such as the Court Filing
XML schema, is used with </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> another,</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>such as the SOAP schema. Creating an XML namespace for
the proposed </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>Court Filing XML schema would
improve its utility significantly.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> ANY content elements - the DTD to XML schema converter
changed </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> elements in</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>the DTD having ANY content (e.g. administrativeLaw, civil,
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>domesticRelations, etc.), which can contain any
of the other elements </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>declared in the DTD, to
elements having mixed con</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> tent, which can
contain text and specifically declared elements. The </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> mixed</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>content elements in the
proposed XML schema, however, contain no </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>declared elements. Thus, filings containing an element within
<civil/> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>will be valid against the Court
Filing DTD</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> , but not against the proposed
XML schema. The wildcard component of </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>>
XML</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>schema is capable of providing substantially
the same function as ANY </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>content in a DTD.
Changing the "empty" mixed content elements in the </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>proposed Court Filing XML schema to use X</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> ML schema wildcards would make the schema more equivalent to
the DTD.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> Enumerated element values - XML schema allow the declaration
of </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> enumerated</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>values for elements in addition to attributes. Many of the
elements </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>(hairColor, eyeColor, race, etc.)
in the Court Filing 1.1 DTD have </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>required data
values. Including such requi</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> red data
values as enumerated element values in the proposed schema </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>> would</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>prevent problems that
might occur if an element in a filing fails to </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>contain the data value required by the Court Filing 1.1
spec.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> Datatyping - one of the major advantages of XML schema over
DTDs is</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>datatyping. There are built-in data
types available in XML schema for </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>date, time,
integer, decimal, and others. It also is possible to </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>declare datatypes for data items such as zip codes</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> or telephone numbers. The proposed Court
Filing XML schema uses only </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> the</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>string data type, but might be made more useful if
other XML data types </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>were used where
appropriate.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> I again commend MTG's contribution. Thanks for soliciting
and </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> considering</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>these suggestions.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> Rolly Chambers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> From: John Greacen</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Sent:
Mon 3/10/2003 6:16 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> To: Electronic Court
Filing Technical Committeee</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Cc:</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Contribution from
OXCI project</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> I enclose a zipped file containing a report from MTG for
OXCI </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> including a</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>series of architectural recommendations for the OXCI product and
draft </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>schemas for court filing and query and
response. The court filing </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>schema
incorporates ebXML messaging and t</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> he
elements from the current version of the JXDDS. Those are two of
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>> the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>objectives
we have set for ourselves for Electronic Court Filing </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>>"Blue." OXCI is contributing these work products to this
Technical </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>Committee to use as we see fit.
OXCI would als</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> o appreciate feedback on the
architectural piece and on the schemas.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> John M. Greacen</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> Greacen
Associates, LLC</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>> HCR 78, Box 23</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> Regina, New Mexico 87046</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> 505-289-2164</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> 505-780-1450
(cell)</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>>
----------------------------------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use
the subscription</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>> manager: <<A
href="http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl">http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl</A>></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT
size=2>----------------------------------------------------------------</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>manager: <<A
href="http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl">http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl</A>></FONT>
</P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_zOVmB0CVcHWvrimy/V+2LQ)--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]