Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Second unresolved agenda item

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

Scott,

 

You are correct we do not have a functional requirement that represents what I am saying.  The current requirements only deal with the payload information and not the requirements at the application level.  In the New Orleans meeting we stated several times that the requirements are not complete and we will find more.  Here is my proposal for an application level functional requirement:

 

A Clerk Review MDE must be able to support more than one CMS, and each CMS may have a different court policy and extensions.  This condition could easily occur when a single state wide Clerk Review MDE supports multiple court locations with different CMS systems.  Some courts will need different extensions, and some will have different policies and we cannot force them to be the same just because they are going through the same Clerk Review MDE.

 

Some of the discussion from our current requirements have debated whether to create a method of extending the basic LegalXML Blue schema to allow for court specific extensions or whether we force the court specific extensions to exist in a separate XML document instance. The application requirement I just proposed above relates to this issue.

 

If we take the position of separating the basic LegalXML Blue schema from court specific extensions then the LegalXML TC has better control over the versioning of the Blue schema and this may well impact the ability to test or certify some level of interoperability.  If we allow courts to extend the basic Blue schema my reaction is that the control over the versions will be much more difficult to manage and testing of interoperability is more complicated.

 

When we send a Filing Review Message to a Clerk Review MDE, we better know what version of Blue it conforms to, and I anticipate we will have to support more than one version after a while, so perhaps that is another functional requirement.  In addition, I anticipate the court policy versions will change more quickly than the Blue Schema and the separation simplifies the level of testing at least for the Blue schema.   I suggest that the SOAP Header area is where all this occurs. 

 

 

Dallas

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Scott Came

To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee

Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:56 PM

Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Second unresolved agenda item

Hi Dallas.

This diagram is intended to apply only to the Web Services Messaging Profile.  (It is intended to go into the strawman specification in the WS MP section.)  I would hope other profiles would provide a similar diagram or other description of how the parts of a complete message fit together for transmission between MDEs.

As the diagram doesn't get into the contents of the message body, it doesn't show where "embedded" documents would go.  But it certainly doesn't preclude them, should they be included in the message structure schema for a particular message.

Do we have a requirement in the requirements document for the "version controls" feature you mention below?  If it would be implemented in SOAP headers in the WS MP, I would think it would be a non-functional requirement.

> It is my understanding that we have agreed that the standard is not restricted to one specific Communication layer.
> With that in mind, we should take the SOAP Message Package out of the discussion. I also believe in previous
> discussions that we agreed to allow the documents to be embedded in the body or to be included as attachments such as
> that which is defined below. I would anticipate that there should be two diagrams depending on which one an
> implementation desires otherwise we are binding ourselves to require the SOAP messaging layer as identified in your
> diagram.
>
> Also, from my previous message I believe that the standard clearly needs to define version controls which I think
> should reside in the SOAP Header area. The standard also needs to define how that process works with intermediary
> nodes.
>
> Dallas
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John M. Greacen
> To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 4:46 PM
> Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Second unresolved agenda item
>
>
> Please post your comments by nest Tuesday on the following architecture for the Court Filing Blue message structure
> proposed by Scott Came.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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