[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: Agenda items for Tuesday telephone call
Tom (All): Our technical team had several follow-up questions to your re-cap but perhaps I should wait for the meeting minutes. Do you know if the items you re-cap will be included in the minutes and when the minutes might be forthcoming? Thank you in advance. -Robert ________________________________ From: Carlson, Tom [mailto:tcarlson@ncsc.dni.us] Sent: Tue 2005-06-07 5:35 AM To: john@greacen.net; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: Agenda items for Tuesday telephone call Here's a quick re-cap of the extensions issue: There are implementation difficulties with doing extensions via the approved XSTF/GTRI extension mechanism. So alternatives have been proposed. The alternatives would be easier to implement, but at the cost of possibly being non-conformant with the GJXDM. So, there are two questions raised: 1) Do we want to risk non-conformancy in the name of implementation ease. (Keeping in mind that non-conformancy could result in loss of funding for projects using Blue?) 2) If so, which alternative should we use? The two alternatives proposed are: 1) Require implementations to group local extensions in a separate document, keeping the main document true-Blue. 2) Include catch-all elements in Blue to allow local extensions to be included in the main document. This could be as simple as an element structure to hold key-value pairs. One question I still have is, why can't we use XSTF-style extension and have the implementations ignore extensions they don't support? How would the alternatives posed be any easier or different? ________________________________ From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net] Sent: Mon 6/6/2005 7:15 PM To: 'Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee' Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Agenda items for Tuesday telephone call We will address the following issues during tomorrow's conference call: Local extensions to the Blue schema Use of the entity seal and its inclusion as a mandatory or recommended feature of the specification How we handle IP policies in all incorporated standards The official name for Blue - "Blue" was a provisional name assigned until we were ready to assign a version number. Is this ECF 2.0 or ECF 3.0? Whether we need to define additional messages for service How Court Filing Policy will be addressed Everyone with a stake in how these issues are resolved should plan to participate in the call. 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]