[legalxml-courtfiling-cms-api] FW: QR Spec: Comments

["Rowley, Moira" <Moira.Rowley@acs-inc.com>]

For discussion on the list and in our next ear-to-ear meeting.  We have previously distributed Shane Durham's comments.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: T J Smith [mailto:TJSmith@itdecision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:38 PM
To: Moira Rowley
Subject: QR Spec: Comments

Here are my remaining comments re: the draft Q&R spec. Quoted material is from the spec so as to provide context. Italicized stuff is my comment. In the event it looks like garbage (format, not intellectual content of course) I've attached a version in Word.

 

 

1.       1.2 Document Description: "This document includes a DTD that is to be used to validate the syntax of XML documents used to retrieve information from a court." 
This document also includes Policy XML DTDs. Confused me for a bit. 

 

2.    3 Element Specification:

b.      3.1.1 Query Name: Do we need version control to handle evolution of Q&R DTDs?

c.      3.1.3 Privilege:  "If a privilege level is submitted with the query, the court is free to ignore it."
No - in our model the court must be guiven the filer's privilege level to help decide if it should honor the query. Need to accomodate both models.

d.      3.1.4.1 Parameter: "Wherever possible, the parameterName should coincide with the established elements and attributes of the LegalXML data dictionary and contain the same information."
Where's that dictionary?

3.       3.2 Response: Don't we need a way to associate a response to a given query?

4.   3.3.1. getActorRole: "The getActorRole query is used to retrieve the role of an actor involved in the case, e.g., a party or an attorney, and that actor's privilege level to view case information."
This presupposes the court modifies its CMS to track filers & privileges; in CA, we wish to require EFSPs to perform that function. Same issue as 3.1.3.

5.    3.3.7. getCourtPolicy: "The getCourtPolicy query is used to retrieve the court's Court Policy XML document."
No - thought we'd agreed at one point that access to Court Policy XML should be outside the API. The API talks to the CMS, and the CMS knows nothing about Policy XML.

6.    Missing Queries?   

a.      Filer registration functions missing: RegisterNewActor; InactivateActor.

b.      See table below.

 

 

QR Draft Standard 2-10-2002	QR Draft Standard 7-1-2002	CMS API
Get actor status (actorStatus)	GetActorRole?	GetActorStatus
Get associated case list for a particular actor (associatedCases).	GetAssociatedCases	GetCasesForActor
Get case calendar (caseCalendar).	getCaseCalendar	GetCalendarForCase
Get a specific case document, with or without any attachments (caseDocument).	getCaseDocument	GetDocument
Get case history (caseHistory).	getCaseHistory	GetCaseHistory
Get case information (caseInformation).	getCaseInformation	GetCaseInformation
Get court policy (courtPolicy).	getCourtPolicy
		GetAttorneyForParty
		GetDocumentListForCase
		GetMatters-ActionsOfCase
		GetFilingFee
		RegisterNewActor
		InactivateActor

 

 

Tom Smith

IT\Decision/CEFTS Program, CA AOC

tjsmith@itdecision.com

650.591.1795 (Ofc)

650.346.7689 (Mobile)

650.591.1425 (Fax)

 

Attachment: Comments to Q&R Draft of 2002-07-01.doc
Description: MS-Word document