[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: FW: Base and advanced ECF conformance classes / tests?
|
Jim Harris and I met with the Springboard team last week to do an initial triage of the additional feedback on ECF 4.01 and the WS SIP they provided. Scott Serich made some suggestions that we should discuss
as a TC tomorrow. 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: Scott Serich [mailto:Scott.Serich@ijis.org] Yes, I’m actually willing to drop the idea of using any levels per se, so I think we’re on the same page in that regard (unless somebody else on this list can come up with a compelling argument to the contrary). We will still need to be able to clearly differentiate among the various certifications earned at a micro, conformance-class level, of course. What might fit better than “levels” could be to locate all the mandatory transport tests in one distinct soapUI project and all the optional transport tests in another distinct soapUI project. I think this will
make it clear to everybody that the mandatory transport tests need to be passed regardless of which functional conformation classes are claimed and the optional transport tests are just that (optional unless a participant wishes to claim them). For example, if two participants both certified to the functional conformance class “Filing Assembly MDE” plus “Criminal and Civil Case Types”, they should have a high level of confidence in ability to interoperate
using these particular functions on top of the transport capabilities tested in the
mandatory soapUI project. Whether they could also interoperate on top of the transport capabilities in the
optional test set would depend on which optional transport tests they had each certified against. If one has certified against non-repudiation, etc. but the other hasn’t, then they should have a low interoperability confidence level for this particular
scenario. Anybody see any flaws in this approach? From: James E Cabral [mailto:jec@mtgmc.com]
Scott, I appreciate what you trying to do but I’m not sure it will help. The approach you describe attempts to reflect the principle of “layered interoperability” among ECF implementations. However, as you guys can
now appreciate, ECF interoperability in real world implementations is much more complex than just 2 levels. We could define even more levels but I’m afraid that this will create even more confusion among courts and solutions providers of what it means to
be “ECF certified” by Springboard. For instance, if I’m certified “bronze” and you are certified “gold”, how compatible are we? These are just my 2c. I’m interested in hearing more from Jim Harris and the Open Networks team. I will also add this to the agenda for the ECF TC on Tuesday. 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: Scott Serich [mailto:Scott.Serich@ijis.org]
All – After yesterday’s conference call (which I thought was extremely productive), it struck me that perhaps instead of having just one soapUI project to cover all common test suites, we should have two: one for base (“bronze”) transport
capabilities and one for all the advanced (“platinum”) transport features that would be required to claim conformance to optional features such as non-repudiation, integrity, etc. So every participant seeking to demonstrate conformance to any class whatsoever would be required to pass all the tests in the base transport class, plus at least one of the functional tests that interests them [i.e., corresponding to selected
MDE(s), case type(s)]. A participant seeking to claim conformance to a platinum transport class would also have to pass one or more of the test suites in the advanced transport soapUI project. And now that I think about it, we could probably get away with just two labels on the levels, “base transport” and “advanced transport” rather than bronze, silver, etc. What think? ===== |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]