legalxml-courtfiling message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements
- From: "Scott Came" <scott@justiceintegration.com>
- To: "'Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee'" <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Just for the record, I'm completely neutral on whether the more extensive set of elements is included in the Review
Filing message structure. I think this should be determined by those with experience implementing our envisioned
Filing Review MDE functionality, and business expertise, as John suggests.
However, I can say that modeling
and mapping the more extensive set of elements presents a schedule risk for us. Assuming we decide to move forward
including the elements, we'll need to figure out how to mitigate the schedule impact for early July. Whatever
strategy we use, we should seek to reuse the work already done on reference IEPs in these areas...that will reduce
(but not eliminate) the schedule impact.
> Tom and Scott - This is all news to me. I have been under
the impression,
> from the earliest days of the TC, that our XML specifications have to
> include the
information needed by courts to initiate new cases, in all case
> types. That is information that needs to
come in XML so that it is
> available directly to the court (or the Filing Review MDE) for creation of
> the case opening information for filing of complaints, petitions,
> informations, and indictments that
create new cases. If the data is not
> there, the court cannot file these documents. Going down into another
layer
> of the message structure to find this information - where according to Scott
> it would not
necessarily be in XML at all - seems to me to create problems
> for implementers.
>
> I read
the Court Filing Blue requirements document to be consistent with my
> prior understanding that this
information is included within the Blue
> specification and schema. I guess this shows that there are
problems with
> the requirements documents if we three can read it and come to such
> different
expectations about this important part of the efiling process.
> When we discussed the issue in New Orleans -
when I took on responsibility
> for collecting this information - no one suggested that it was out of scope
> for Blue. When I collected the data from multiple sources, several of whom
> are TC members (including
Dallas, Robin, Roger, and Jim Harris), no one
> suggested that it was outside the scope of Blue.
>
> I am open to discussion of this issue, and am willing to consider
> alternative approaches. But the
matter requires discussion on the list.
>
> Dallas, Shane, Don, Jim Beard, Shogan Naidoo, Robert
DePhillips and other
> implementers - do we need to include this information in Court Filing Blue
> or
can we create a structure that posits its appearance in some part of the
> Court Filing Blue message that is
not defined in Blue?
>
> I will make sure that this issue is on the Atlanta face to face agenda.
But
> I would appreciate some discussion on the list prior to the meeting.
>
> _____
>
> From: Clarke, Thomas [mailto:tclarke@ncsc.dni.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:19 AM
> To: scott@justiceintegration.com; Electronic Court Filing Technical
> Committeee
> Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements
>
> I was under the same impression as Scott.
Typically, the minimum case
> initiation and document indexing elements are restricted to somewhere around
> 10 to 15 data elements. The rest go into the appropriate IEP. At least
> that is the strategy assumed
by Global and the GJXDM folks.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Came
[mailto:scott@justiceintegration.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 4:43 PM
> To: Electronic Court
Filing Technical Committeee
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements
>
> Thanks John.
>
> This is certainly a substantial list of data elements. I've also noticed
> that there is some overlap with the criminal complaint reference IEP work
> previously undertaken by
the law enforcement reference IEP projects earlier
> this year (based on work done earlier in LA County), and
also the NCSC
> traffic citation reference IEP.
>
> I had thought our approach was to include
such instances of other reference
> IEPs as one of the documents in the Blue message structure, with only
> "basic" case information in the main body of the Blue message. For
> instance, it would
certainly be straightforward for law enforcement to file
> a traffic citation case by including in the main
Blue message body the basic
> information (parties names, court info, case title, case type, etc.) Then
> the document (what we used to call the lead document) would contain the full
> citation information.
If this were XML, we would hope it would be something
> close to (or derived from) the citation reference IEP,
but ultimately it
> would be whatever is standard in that jurisdiction. But it would not have
> to be
XML. Regardless, the "basic" case information included in the Blue
> message body would be standard
for all compliant implementations...this is
> what we must define in the specification.
>
>
Has this approach changed?
>
> In any case, knowing how long it took to produce the current drafts of
the
> criminal complaint and citation reference IEPs, doing something similar
> would take much more
time than we have allotted for this week's exercise.
> If this list of elements is to be included, we'll need
to plan on a second
> session at a later time.
>
>> I attach a Word table setting forth
the case initiation data elements that
> I
>> have discovered to date. They include input from the
Administrative Office
>> of US Courts, Orange County, FLA, Minneapolis, Missouri, Utah, and King
>> County, WA. The list includes case initiation data for criminal, civil,
>> bankruptcy, family,
juvenile delinquency, juvenile dependency, mental
>> health, traffic and probate cases.
>>
>> I am indebted to all who sent data elements to me.
>>
>> The exercise of putting this
together convinces me that we need to include
>> some mechanism for easily extending our schema(s) to allow
for the
> exchange
>> of additional data elements. After I had incorporated several criminal
> data
>> element sets, I assumed that I had the matrix well populated. However, I
>> found
that each additional set of elements from a new jurisdiction
>> contributed several new elements not used
in the multiple element sets
> that
>> I had already incorporated.
>>
>> In
short, I consider this a very substantial list of case initiation
>> elements that will impress our
stakeholders of the breadth of our inquiry.
>> But I know it is not exhaustive, and, as Dallas Powell
continually points
>> out, it cannot be made exhaustive no matter how much work we commit to the
>> task because of the unique data elements used and therefore required in
>> different states and
different courts within some states.
>>
>> I hope this is helpful to the reference document
effort at the end of this
>> week. I leave it to Scott Came to determine if and how it can be used in
>> that exercise.
>>
>> John M. Greacen
>> Greacen Associates, LLC
>> HCR 78 Box 23
>> Regina, New Mexico 87046
>> 505-289-2164
>> 505-289-2163
(fax)
>> 505-780-1450 (cell)
>> john@greacen.net
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail
list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
TCs in
> OASIS
>> at:
>>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe from this mail list,
you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
> this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]