P2 -Comments on the requirements document dated April 4, 2005. This is part one

["Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>]

Eric et all,

Here are my comments on the requirements document dated April 4, 2005. This is part one of two parts to my response.

 

·         711 -- I belief we need to put the definition of a major design element here.  A major design element (MDE) is an abstract part of the LegalXML system.  It is specifically framed to not to be a specific direction on the implementation of the system.  It is designed to show the interactions and communications required to fulfill the targeted functionality.  A synonym often used for this in some use case methodologies is component.  However, as subsequent efforts within the community migrate into implementation component will often become an overloaded term.  We have chosen to avoid this overloading by using the MDE terminology.

·         722 -- As mentioned in my earlier e-mail you need to be clear that court, both court staff and judges may be filer's within the system.  We need to keep this in front of them because it is often overlooked.  We should also point out the likely use of this interface by the integrated justice community.  This would include, prosecutors, law enforcement, parole and probation in the prison system just to name a few.

·         741 -- There is no minimum guarantee he unless it is received by the court.  So we need to be a little clearer on this.

·         751 -- The wording on this seems awkward.  The meaning is correct but the wording may lead one to believe that the filer has the power to review which is not the intent.  You may want to say that the interaction is limited to posting the filing to the clerk review MDE.

·         754 -- in the sequence beginning here it does not show an interaction with the filing fee arena including the payment activities.  A sure you want to leave that gap?

·         780 -- If the communication is received, then it has been received.  It should be receded as received.  If received but not formally processed that should be communicated.  We need to get the boundary between receipt, acceptance, and rejection that is crystal clear.

·         4.1 in general -- the whole area of fees and payments is missing here.  I'm a bit concerned.

·         4 .4 .4 through 4.4.6 -- Define the behavior when a document within a case is sealed and may be hidden from the docket itself, visible to the docket but unnamed and unretrievable, visible in the docket named the and unretrievable.

 

This is the end of my comments.  Thank you for all your hard work.  I look forward to working with you on the specifications.

 

Regards,

Don

Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781

---

From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 8:44 AM
To: etingom@tsquaredinteractive.com; courtfiling-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)
Subject: Comments on the requirements document dated April 4, 2005. This is part one
Importance: High

 

Eric et all,

Here are my comments on the requirements document dated April 4, 2005. This is part one of two parts to my response.  I want to get this part into your hands as soon as practical.

 

Again, I want to thank you for your diligent efforts so far.  They are paying off!

 

·         117 -- under filer thing could be a good idea to create a parenthetical indicating that the filer could be a clerk, attorney, Judge filed by an....  This would up front set the context of a filer goes beyond what normally people think of as being on the left-hand side.

·         120 -- I think you have an unintended image here.

·         125 -- I think you may want to consider placing a note here that in subsequent releases of the court filing blue platform filer actors may go well beyond those listed here.  Further, I think it needs to be explicitly stated that the judge may be a filer.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but very often the judge is not considered a staff member of the court.

·         131 -- You may want to consider noting the relationship to the court filing process document written by John Greacen et al. as posted on the National Center for State Courts web site.

·         147 -- I believe your minimum guarantee is incorrect.  The minimum guarantee here is an acknowledgment from the court system that a filing has been received, including partial receipt.

·         125 -- Perhaps in section 1 prior to the use of the term LegalXML system refers to a system conforming to the court filing blue specification.

·         184 -- ibid. first 125 above.  Regarding the judge -- please make this a global comment for adjustment.

·         200 -- Consider changing cannot too cannot and shall not

·         204 -- I think this may be misleading.  The filing contains the metadata contained within the envelope or more properly the transmittal inventory.  Since this is part of the intellectual content of the filing I think it should be reference here.  The document references this data as filing data in 2.2.

·         Page 9, footnote 2 -- A preprocessor, may interrogate the lead in supporting documents and present this data to the filing assembly process.  I don't think we necessary want to preclude this.

·         260 -- I think you need to be more careful in the wording of this section.  If not clarified the boundary between receive and accept could be blurred causing a later failure in the specification.

·         270 -- Do we need to have a specific message in the system that gives notice to the court of an unsuccessful attempt file so that such an attempt can be explicitly communicated by the filer to the court.

·         300 -- in reference to 125, hear you very directly state the difference between the judge or court staff member.

·         380 -- The actor, docketing clerk is introduced at this point.  I suggest this needs to be in the summary of actors at the beginning of this section.

·         428 -- In the section beginning here question rises, do we need to have a message type responding to the filer where the filing is accepted, but subsequently it is not docketed in whole or in part.

·         448 -- Can 2.2.3 and 2 .2 .4 get out of order.  This would lead to my comments at 428.

·         506 -- Should we include here the ability to create a new filing is an exception to this response.  I think that this may be an extension scenario to this use case.

·         584 -- We have another new actor that needs to be added to the summary of actors.

·         635 -- We have another new actor that needs to be added to the summary of actors.  In this location in an implicit actor and you may need to give more thought on how you want to handle this.

·         683 -- In this whole section you may want to reference the nomenclature used in your diagram scheme.  Although obvious to many of us, people in the court community that might be reviewing this at a later time may have difficulty without the magic decoder ring.

·         General note -- Thank you for adding this section.  I think it will be helpful in bringing subsequent readers of this document into the context  a way that will give them better understanding in a shorter period of time.  It also does not immediately force them into context of our abstract system under design and how were naming the MDEs.

 

 

 

Regards,

Don

Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781