RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for EC

I understand and agree with Dallas's point. He's key point is that if the court is not going to be willing to be the registration point the community should have a readily available alternative. It really is a community and priority/political issue. I can personally live with either solution.

Regretfully, I will not be the do attend tomorrow's conference call as I will be moving my stepdaughter. This wishes and bring this to closure.

Regards,

Don

Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781

From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:01 PM
To: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY); 'Cabral, James E.'; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

If we are going to hedge our bet because of time constraints then we should eliminate eService from court filing 2.0 rather than hope to get even one of the models right. Tybera has already worked on model B because of customer demand, and I think that is valid business reason.

An issue that came to our attention last night as we were continuing to review the eService concerns is regarding relationships in the database. Court filing 2.0 includes the ability for the submitter to be different than the legal representative that signs the document. That means the central database must have a relationship between the submitter, the legal rep, and the party represented. I am concerned that we have not worked through those issues yet.

Also, the concept of a ServiceID really does not function properly because an ID to me refers to a number, and that number may be an entry in a table that contains URL info, communication info, and so forth. It is not clear to me if the intent of the serviceProfile info is designed to make up the amount of information missing from an ID.

Anyway, the idea that this will be easy and to move forward with one model does not seem correct to me.

Dallas

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

From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)

To: 'Cabral, James E.' ; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee

Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:43 AM

Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

After reviewing the discussion points and positions described below I would suggest that we hedge our bets.

My bet is that in the fullness of time the first option will win out. I believe there will be a function of education and removing of fear uncertainty and doubt.

Given that, for the first release of court filing 2.0, we should only support option one. By doing so, we do not preclude the option of supporting option two and a subsequent release. If there is not a solid, educated business demand then we will not implement the and a subsequent release. However, I believe that is a valid option in the roadmap.

Regards,

Don

Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781

From: Cabral, James E. [mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 1:25 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

Everyone,

Thursday and Friday last week, John Greacen, Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt, another MTG consultant, and I made a first attempt at developing a domain model and GJXDM mapping for electronic service. We wrote up a quick 3 page summary of the model and solicited initial feedback from some of the vendors actively participating on the TC with the expectation that we would send it to TC Monday. We did not expect the considerable response we received.

With the hope of coming to a consensus as a TC as soon as possible, I have summarized the comments over the last couple days and a proposed alternative model in the attached document. I have also attached a service cover sheet that Tybera is currently developing with Orange County, that Dallas graciously provided as an example.

As you will see from the main document, the main decision point is whether we need to support one or two service models. We request feedback from all TC members on this important issue as soon as possible so that we can finish up the specification. Please be sure to send your response to the entire list. If you can make your comments via "Track Changes" in Word, that would simplify our aggregation of the comments. I will leave it to the TC chairs to propose a decision making process.

<<Proposed Service Models for ECF3.doc>> <<NEF Draft 1 dated 04-20-05.doc>>
Thanks!

Jim Cabral

James E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101-3201
(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

legalxml-courtfiling message