RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Multiple Document Versions Option 4

["John M. Greacen" <john@greacen.net>]

Roger -- Everyone is in agreement with your observations, with the exception
that some courts file proposed orders in their CMS.  Whether to do that will
be optional with the court.

We are including a tag in the rendition metadata for designating one of the
filings as the "official" document.

-----Original Message-----
From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV] 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:14 AM
To: Rex McElrath; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Multiple Document Versions Option 4

Sorry I couldn't be in San Diego and couldn't participate in yesterday's
call. I do plan to be on the call today.

Regarding multiple versions, I have one concern which I think is
addressed, but I want to be sure. Rex's document included language that
talks about the primary document or format of which the multiple
versions are "exact copies" (in terms of content). He discussed that
first document as the "original" when it comes to e-filing.

I'm not sure I remember the business cases for multiple formats, but I
do want to stress some points which might then require changes or a
notation in the specification. It appears to me that all of the
"alternate format" documents have temporary uses, so, unlike the
"original" (usually, a PDF), they do not need to be retained for as long
as the case record is retained. Courts of limited jurisdiction may have
relatively short periods for retaining case records; courts of general
jurisdiction typically are required to keep court case files
"indefinitely" (interpreted as meaning "forever"). Even with reduced
costs for storage space, we would NOT want to keep the alternate
versions in the DMS, would we? If the document is for display purposes
only, then it might need to be retained, but there should be something
to indicate the relationship between it and the "original" and to prove
they are "in sync."

* There can be only one "original" document. (As the saying goes, "The
person with two watches never knows what time it is!") That a given
document is "the original" needs to be clearly indicated if a formality
of e-filing the document is involved in a transaction. The Clerk has the
duty to receive and preserve the "original" filed document as it was
filed; safeguarding it against unauthorized changes is also a Clerk's
duty. (Is there a Clerk's obligation to preserve the alternate formats
against change? Does the Clerk need to attest that the alternate formats
match the "original?" How would that be done?)
 
* The alternate format document, it seems to me, could be used for
display purposes or could be used by the judge or someone as a draft or
template. In our Clerk's Office, we do not allow the filing--in the
Clerk's Office--of unsigned proposed court orders. They are routed
separately to the judge. If the alternate format document is intended
for a purpose outside the e-filing and DMS systems, that would be fine,
but it should NOT be accepted by the Clerk as part of the "official case
record." 

* It seems to me that the alternate format documents should be scheduled
for automatic destruction, since they are not the "original" documents.
They might be set to "expire" after a set period of time (or "X days
following case completion," for example). My point is that even though
they may remain "exact copies" in terms of content (words, layout,
pictures, other human readable/observable features) they are not
"original" documents for the official case record (DMS).  

I'd appreciate any corrections regarding the above, to give me a clearer
understanding of this multiple versions action.

Roger Winters
Program and Project Manager
and
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Ave. E-609 MS:KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, WA 98104
V: (206) 296-7838
F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex McElrath [mailto:mcelratr@gaaoc.us] 
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:30 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Multiple Document Versions Option 4

Hi,

  Thank you for sending out the domain model with the new proposal.  I
believe is similar to the proposal generated from Shane's suggestions at
the last Face To Face in Vegas (attached).  On the working group call
where this was discussed, the proposal with a document within a document
structure wasn't accepted and this was the reason for resubmitting the
previous proposal.  I don't have my notes from the call with me, but I
believe the reason it wasn't accepted was due to the confusion with
metadata and the need for overlapping structures within the same
Document structure.  Either way that the group decides, a document
within a document or additional tags to relate two separate documents is
fine with me.

Thanks,

Rex


-----Original Message-----
From: Cabral, James E. [mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com]
Sent: Thu 4/19/2007 3:03 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Multiple Document Versions Option 4
 
In the TC meeting today, Gary Graham suggested a fourth option for
supporting multiple document versions/renditions in ECF 3.1.   Here is a
possible domain model for that option which would separate out some
elements from the current DocumentMetadata structure into a new
DocumentRenditionMetadata structure.  Note that the DocumentSignature
would need to be associated with the rendition since it may be based on
the content (e.g. XMLsignatures).  Also note the addition of an
officialVersionIndicator to the DocumentRenditionMetadata structure.

<<ECF 3.1 Multiple Document Versions Option4.zargo>> <<ECF 3.1 Multiple
Document Versions Option4.gif>>   

Jim Cabral 

James E. Cabral Jr. 
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C. 
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3010 
Seattle, WA 98101-3292 
(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.








-----------------------------------------
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely
for the use of the entity or individual(s) to whom they are
addressed and not for reliance upon by unintended recipients.  If
you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient be advised that you
have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail and any files
transmitted are strictly prohibited. If you have received this
e-mail in error please delete the entire email and immediately
notify us by email to the sender or by telephone to the AOC main
office number, (404) 656-5171. Thank you.