[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling-cms-api] FW: Revised QnR Spec
The attached spec was revised by Dwight Daniels following our 7/30 conference call. Please review and post your comments by Wednesday 8/14/02.
Moira Rowley
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniels, Dwight R [mailto:drdaniels@kpmg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 1:52 AM
To: Rowley, Moira
Subject: Revised QnR Spec
*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.
*****************************************************************************
--- Begin Message ---
- To:
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 19:02:11 -1200
Moria, Here's the revised version of the QnR spec for posting and distribution. I've also responded to Tom's comments as well. My responses are embedded in Tom's email. Dwight -----Original Message----- From: Rowley, Moira [mailto:Moira.Rowley@acs-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:27 PM To: 'shane.durham@lexisnexis.com'; 'steve.spohn@jud.ca.gov'; 'lcoody@courtspecialists.com'; 'christopher.smith@jud.ca.gov'; 'drdaniels@kpmg.com' Subject: FW: QR Spec: Comments Tom Smith's comments that we will discuss in email and in our next meeting. I will also post to the OASIS list. - Moira -----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 BM__Toc485445115BM__Toc13296972Document 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. [DRD] Modified document description to include a reference to this. 2. 3 Element Specification: b. 3.1.1 Query Name: Do we need version control to handle evolution of Q&R DTDs?[DRD] I'm not sure but I don't think so. I would envision most, if not all, changes being in the area of the so-called "standard queries," whose number may grow. But this would be documented in the QnR spec and would not affect the DTDs themselves. 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. [DRD] Both models are accomodated. Any other statement forces the CA model on everyone. CA is free to insist that a court be given this information. However, since the court must first disclose this information, I personally believe this to open the door to major security breeches and consider this a severe defect in the CA model. Since Shane and I seem to be on opposite ends on many issues, I want to point out that I agree with him on this one, but that he and I would seem to be in the minority. 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? [DRD] I don't remember exactly where it is (though I do have a hard copy version of it), or even if it's ever been posted, but I'm referring to the reconciliation dictionary, which, as I understand it, is a living document. There also is/was a dictionary subgroup. 3. 3.2 Response: Don't we need a way to associate a response to a given query?[DRD] Why? Are we envisioning questions being submitted but not responded to until some later date? I don't think we need this. At least I don't see any compelling reason for it. 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.[DRD] No, I don't think it does. It only presupposes that each CMS has some record of the parties to a case and the access level that is associated with their role on the case. Also, though I understand the reasoning behind the desire to keep the number of changes required of CMS vendors at a minimum, I don't think changes can be avoided altogether. At some point the CMS vendors are also going to have to step up to the plate. I also think we underestimate the willingness of CMS vendors to do so. 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.[DRD] Something needs to know about Policy XML, whether it be a module put in front of the CMS or that is part of the CMS. Also, the current version of the CMS API spec lists getCourtPolicy as a "candidate predefined query." No official word exists on the "candidates" as to which were elected and which were voted down. In my opinion, we either honor them all or we honor none of them. 6. Missing Queries? [DRD] The so-called "missing queries" are not in the current version of the CMS API spec. I refer you all to p. 4 n.2 of the QnR spec for my view of what the CMS API document constitutes. 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 <mailto:tjsmith@itdecision.com> tjsmith@itdecision.com 650.591.1795 (Ofc) 650.346.7689 (Mobile) 650.591.1425 (Fax)Moria,Here's the revised version of the QnR spec for posting and distribution. I've also responded to Tom's comments as well. My responses are embedded in Tom's email.Dwight-----Original Message-----
From: Rowley, Moira [mailto:Moira.Rowley@acs-inc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:27 PM
To: 'shane.durham@lexisnexis.com'; 'steve.spohn@jud.ca.gov'; 'lcoody@courtspecialists.com'; 'christopher.smith@jud.ca.gov'; 'drdaniels@kpmg.com'
Subject: FW: QR Spec: Comments--- End Message ---Tom Smith's comments that we will discuss in email and in our next meeting. I will also post to the OASIS list. - Moira-----Original Message-----
From: T J Smith [mailto:TJSmith@itdecision.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 3:38 PM
To: Moira Rowley
Subject: QR Spec: CommentsHere 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.
[DRD] Modified document description to include a reference to this.2. 3 Element Specification:b. 3.1.1 Query Name: Do we need version control to handle evolution of Q&R DTDs?[DRD] I'm not sure but I don't think so. I would envision most, if not all, changes being in the area of the so-called "standard queries," whose number may grow. But this would be documented in the QnR spec and would not affect the DTDs themselves.
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.
[DRD] Both models are accomodated. Any other statement forces the CA model on everyone. CA is free to insist that a court be given this information. However, since the court must first disclose this information, I personally believe this to open the door to major security breeches and consider this a severe defect in the CA model. Since Shane and I seem to be on opposite ends on many issues, I want to point out that I agree with him on this one, but that he and I would seem to be in the minority.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?
[DRD] I don't remember exactly where it is (though I do have a hard copy version of it), or even if it's ever been posted, but I'm referring to the reconciliation dictionary, which, as I understand it, is a living document. There also is/was a dictionary subgroup.3. 3.2 Response: Don't we need a way to associate a response to a given query?[DRD] Why? Are we envisioning questions being submitted but not responded to until some later date? I don't think we need this. At least I don't see any compelling reason for it.
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.[DRD] No, I don't think it does. It only presupposes that each CMS has some record of the parties to a case and the access level that is associated with their role on the case. Also, though I understand the reasoning behind the desire to keep the number of changes required of CMS vendors at a minimum, I don't think changes can be avoided altogether. At some point the CMS vendors are also going to have to step up to the plate. I also think we underestimate the willingness of CMS vendors to do so.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.[DRD] Something needs to know about Policy XML, whether it be a module put in front of the CMS or that is part of the CMS. Also, the current version of the CMS API spec lists getCourtPolicy as a "candidate predefined query." No official word exists on the "candidates" as to which were elected and which were voted down. In my opinion, we either honor them all or we honor none of them.6. Missing Queries? [DRD] The so-called "missing queries" are not in the current version of the CMS API spec. I refer you all to p. 4 n.2 of the QnR spec for my view of what the CMS API document constitutes.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 SmithIT\Decision/CEFTS Program, CA AOC650.591.1795 (Ofc)650.346.7689 (Mobile)650.591.1425 (Fax)
Attachment:
QueryAndResponseStandard[Draft]2002_08_05.doc
Description: MS-Word document
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC