RE: Problem Statement

Based on feedback from Roger and Terrie and the TC at the last conference call, we have developed the following proposed policy for inclusion of elements in the ECF spec:

Problem (do not include in spec):

As new elements are identified or recommended for incorporation into the standard, we need criteria for determining 1) whether they belong in the standard and 2) if so, where. We need to have a set of principles to help decide what is incorporated into the standard. We need to balance interoperability against ease of implementation.

Principles (do not include in spec):

Reusability: We want to re-use elements as much as possible. People need to know where to find things. Does it make sense to be in the core spec as something to be used among all the courts? Or does it have limited applicability?

Interoperability: Putting more elements in the specification can increase interoperability.

Stability: At the same time, we don’t want to make the standard unwieldy. We want to keep the scope of the core of the standard limited.

Economy: Keep the kernel, which everyone has to implement, as small as possible.

Compatibility: Forward and backward compatibility must be attended to, since adding something means those who have implemented need to go back and retrofit. Retrofitting should be easy enough that implementers will not want to abandon the spec.

Policy (for inclusion the spec):

l Elements in the ECF core specification, whether in common, case type- specific, or court-specific messages, are intended to be useful to an automated case management system for the purposes of partially or fully automating case workflow after filing (e.g., filing review, noticing, docketing, judicial assignment, calendaring, standardized forms receipt and generation, fee processing) or ascertaining the adequacy or appropriateness of the filing (e.g., fee calculation, jurisdiction). Elements in the ECF core specification are not intended to fully populate the automated case management system with all data contained within filed documents. That is, elements in the core-specification should be useful as “filing metadata” about the case, the filing transaction, parties or documents. These elements may also be “filing data”, or the contents of the filings. For instance, information found on a filing cover sheet can generally be considered filing metadata, even if the information is also repeated in the document(s) being filed.

l Elements in the ECF common messages should be applicable to most courts and case types.

l Elements in the ECF case type specific message should only be applicable to only one of the 6 case types defined in National Center for State Courts (NCSC) statistical standards.

l Elements in a locally-defined court-specific message should only be applicable to a particular court or court system but not to courts in general.

l All “filing data” elements should be described in the filed documents, whose structure is outside the scope of the ECF specification.

legalxml-courtfiling message