[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Comments on Committee Specification Draft of ECF ElectronicCourt Filing Version 4.01
ECF TC: I received the following questions from LA County regarding the TC’s decision to continue to make CaseCharges required in the CriminalCase structure. My perspective is that: 1. ECF does support subsequent filing (filings of motions, briefs, medical reports, probation reports, coroner reports) but the case-specific extensions (CriminalCase) are designed for use with case initiation. 2. Juvenile delinquency is addressed in the Juvenile case-specific extensions (JuvenileCase), rather than the criminal extensions (CriminalCase). 3. Charges in Juvenile delinquency cases (DelinquentAct, StatusOffenseAct) are optional because we use the same structure (JuvenileCase) for both delinquency and dependency. I am hopeful we can clarify this via email rather than waiting for the next TC meeting on July 26. Thoughts? Jim Cabral Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve. 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. From: Leon, Marcus [mailto:MLeon@isab.lacounty.gov] Jim, We have one remaining concern regarding the Technical Committee’s response to ISAB’s feedback on the required elements in the ECF 4.01 specification. The item for which we have a concern is: CaseCharge – no changes (The LA County use case is different than the normal criminal case initiation filing for which the CriminalCase structure is intended) Our Concern - The ECF 4.01 specification applies to Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, Domestic Relations, Criminal, Juvenile and Violations types of court cases. In daily practice, the initial filing includes Case Charges for Adult Criminal and Violations court case types and Delinquent Acts or Status Offense Acts for juvenile court case types. The initial filing for the other matters does not include case charges. The ECF case structure should require Case Charges for initial filings of criminal, juvenile delinquency and violation types of court cases, but not for the initial filings in non-criminal types of court cases. Please note that it appears that the ECF schemata do require Case Charges for criminal and violations but makes Delinquent Acts or Status Offense Acts optional for juvenile delinquency actions. After the initial filing, motions and briefs are filed for all types of court cases in daily practice, and charges are not included in these types of documents. Why are electronic filings for motions and briefs for criminal types of court cases not addressed in the ECF 4.01 specification? Why only the initial filing? Moreover, after the initial filing, there are other kinds of documents that are filed in daily practice for criminal cases—medical reports, probation reports, coroner reports, etc.—in which charges are not included. Why are electronic filings for these other kinds of documents not addressed in the ECF 4.01 specification? Why only the initial filing? Thanks Marcus Leon From: James E Cabral [mailto:jcabral@mtgmc.com] Jerry, Thank you for ISAB’s feedback on the required elements in the ECF 4.01 specification. I’ve attached the minutes from today’s meeting in which the TC accepted all but 2 of ISAB’s recommendations and provided responses to the 2 elements we left unchanged. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the TC’s decisions. Thanks, Jim Cabral Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve. 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. From: Jerry Floyd [mailto:JFloyd@isd.lacounty.gov] Hello Jim, Attached are ISAB’s recommendations for adjusting the ECF Version 4.01 schema to make certain elements optional which are now mandatory. Marcus Leon and John Ruegg have reviewed this document and have asked me to forward it to you. We realize that the attachments to the message you sent earlier today may anticipate some of these recommendations, but we are still reviewing those attachments and did not wish to delay sending our recommendations pending completion of our review. Also, we are in process of assembling our example XML instances and will send them later. Jerry L. Floyd Principal Application Developer LA County ISD/ISSD/CCHRS (562) 403-6627 From: James E Cabral [mailto:jcabral@mtgmc.com] Marcus, I apologize for the delay in responding but, as I explained in my attached email to the TC list, I discovered that the constraints had not been applied to the NIEM subset in the public review draft of the ECF 4.01 core specification. I look forward to receiving your example XML instances as well as your suggestions on which elements should be optional. Please let me know if you need anything else for your review. Thanks, Jim Cabral Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve. 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. From: Leon, Marcus [mailto:MLeon@isab.lacounty.gov] Jim, Regarding your request for receiving a list of all ECF required elements that we currently think should be made optional, Jerry Floyd has compiled a list, I have reviewed it and John Ruegg is currently doing a review. We can send the list to you after John completes his review. However, perhaps it would be better to receive your list of cardinality for all required fields, review that list and then add those for which we think cardinality should be revised to our list of suggested cardinality changes. This would provide you feedback for all cardinality changes at one time. Q: What do you think? Regarding the ECF TC request for "real-world" XML instances of ECF 4.0-conformant messages from implementers, Jerry Floyd and I are getting sanitized instances of our Probation Report CoreFilingMessage for adult and juvenile case types. We will get these to you as soon as we can. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. Thanks Marcus Leon From: James E Cabral [mailto:jcabral@mtgmc.com] Marcus, Thank you for your feedback on ECF 4.0. As you know, the TC reviewed your feedback and today approved the changes to the specification summarized in the attachments. Based on your suggestion, the TC would also like to review the cardinality of currently required elements. Specifically, we would appreciate receiving a list from you of all ECF required elements that you needed to make optional in your schemas. In addition, we received feedback from other implementers that more and better XML examples would be good. Therefore, the ECF TC is requesting "real-world" XML instances of ECF 4.0-conformant messages from implementers. In particular, it would be nice to have an example of the CoreFilingMessage for each case type. Could LA County provide some sanitized instances that we can include as a non-normative examples in the specification? Thanks, Jim Cabral Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve. 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. From: James E Cabral ECF TC: Here are my suggested responses and revisions based on the feedback we received from LA County on the ECF 4.01 Core Specification Public Review Draft. Please review these changes and reply to the TC list with any questions and concerns. I am still hoping to gather feedback from the Arizona Supreme Court. Jim Cabral Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve. 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. From: Leon, Marcus [mailto:MLeon@isab.lacounty.gov] Jim, I am resending because Jerry Floyd’s email to you failed. Marcus From: Jerry Floyd [mailto:JFloyd@isd.lacounty.gov] The attached Microsoft Word 2007 document contains Los Angeles County ISAB’s comments on the Subject specification draft, submitted in accordance with the OASIS message of February 26 announcing the commencement of a 30-day Public Review period on the aforesaid draft and inviting interested parties to submit their feedback. Please direct any responses to any or all of the following: John Ruegg Director Information Systems Advisory Body Marcus Leon Director, Project Development Information Systems Advisory Body Thank you. Jerry L. Floyd Principal Application Developer Los Angeles County Internal Services Department Information Systems Support Division CCHRS Section (562) 403-6627 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]