RE: ECF5 feedback

[James E Cabral <jec@mtgmc.com>]

Robert,

 

We had some discussion of this on the call yesterday.  Gary and Philip agreed to provide a new definition of ecf:ServiceRecipientID to clarify the distinction with ecf:ParticipantID.  The new definition should clarify the answer to your question.

 

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

 

From: Robert DeFilippis
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 8:04 PM
To: James E Cabral; Graham, Gary; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: ECF5 feedback

 

Jim-Gary:

 

Specific to item 3. Submitter ID and the definition for ecf:ServiceRecipientID, do you foresee the need to consider the difference between a person and a machine (agent) or is the spec flexible enough to support both?

 

My apologies in advance if this was already discussed.

 

 

-Robert

 

 

 

From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of James E Cabral
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 4:48 PM
To: Graham, Gary <GGraham@courts.az.gov>; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF5 feedback

 

Gary,

 

Here are my responses to your latest feedback that we discussed today.

 

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

 

From: Graham, Gary
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 6:13 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] ECF5 feedback

 

Attached is additional ECF5 WD20 feedback and examples. This document is relevant to tomorrow’s ECF work group conference call.