[legalxml-courtfiling] Interoperability SOW

["jmessing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

On January 16, 2003, you wrote to the TC responding to Shane Durham as follows:

=================================================

"sorry for the delay in answering your request.

"As you are aware, many of the previously defined Statements of Work were halted in the Las Vegas meeting.  One most notable would be the Court Policy document.  Both you and I voiced our opinions against the Court Policy in earlier messages, and neither of us could see how such a document would describe enough information to make it possible for an EFSP application to interoperate with other vendors EFMs.

"Also in the Las Vegas meeting, a proposed document defining layers of
interoperability was presented.  And as the committee reviewed the document we could see that there were many aspects of the proposed interoperability document that were too restrictive in nature.  As I recall we did not get past the first level of interoperability.  From this discussion many voiced the opinion that Court Filing 1.1 did not have adequate information to make interoperability possible.

"From this evolved a recognition that defining business models and creating DTDs still does not provide adequate information too assist courts studying the standards to feel confident that they have captured all the aspects of the standard such that interoperability will happen.  I am confident that my EFM will work not work with your EFSP, do you agree?  I was of the impression that you had to extend the CF 1.1 elements within your product to make your system function, we did also.

"Under the SOW I distributed the main task that was assigned to me was to describe how interoperability 'might' take place with Court Filing 1.1.  As I recall, one person voiced their opinion that it was not possible.  I have taken the liberty of extending the original request to include a living document to be used and modified as we develop Court Filing Blue in an effort to help steer the definitions into a direction that will educate courts seeking to adopt the standard to understand the complexities of interoperability based on specific Business models that will be define under the Dwight's committee.

"Does this help?  If so, I will include this information in the expansion of the document."

===============================================================

Are these ideas and concepts that you wrote in January still intended to be included in the SOW? 

Does the effort require the subcommittee to attempt to normalize through common definitions of such matters as "EFM", which today are used loosely to describe functionality, but lacking the kind of precision needed for interoperability?

Also, some of your earlier papers covered the topic of security, but it is not now specifically referenced in the SOW. Is there an intention still to include security? For example, if two or more EFSP's are talking to an EFM, and (taking your proprietary implementation as I understand it), law firms are also having their CMS' automatically updated in the filing process, then the interconnections between the law firms, EFSP's and EFM theoretically could allow an intruder to capture the system at its weakest point and steal data or cause damage along the line. This security model could be extremely dangerous to the law firms, who have certain duties to their clients to protect data, and could prove to be a liability to the participating EFSP's (the duties and liabilities of the participating courts are less clear). Is this intended to be included as part of the work of the subcommittee under the SOW, as it is generally drawn? Should there be mention of security specifically as a consideration of interoperability in the SOW?

>----- Original Message -----

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>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >