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

["Cabral, James E." <JCabral@mtgmc.com>]

Everyone,

Another option we might consider on our conference call tomorrow is
whether we should present the service messages (as they are virtually
identical for both models) and both models to JTC that let them know
that we are considering whether we should require one or more models in
the specification and would welcome feedback from them.  The feedback
does not necessarily need to be collected at the JTC meeting.

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.



-----Original Message-----
From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:37 PM
To: Robert DeFilippis
Cc: Dallas Powell; Bergeron,Donald L. (LNG-DAY); Cabral, James E.;
Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service
Models for ECF3'

There is much merit in deferring service if it is not sufficiently
mature to contribute meaningfully to the work. Would this approach be
consistent with the expections of the joint technology committee?

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Please review 'Proposed Service 
> Models for ECF3'
> From: "Robert DeFilippis" <RTD@onelegal.com>
> Date: Wed, June 29, 2005 12:28 pm
> To: "Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>, "Bergeron, Donald L.
> (LNG-DAY)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>, "Cabral, James E."
> <JCabral@mtgmc.com>, "Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee"
> <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> Dallas:
>  
> In my mind, you raise a valid point about our time constraints and the

> possibility of deferring eService from CF2.0.  Jim Cabral mentions, in

> his post last night, the considerable response on this subject and 
> that tells me more time is needed (more than we have) to properly vet 
> the various options.  We can not afford to miss the pending 
> presentation deadline because of this issue.
>  
> -Robert
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:01 AM
> 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)
> <mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>  
> 	To: 'Cabral, James E.' <mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com>  ; Electronic
Court 
> Filing Technical Committeee 
> <mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 	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 <file:///\\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.