RecordFiling operation parameters

["Graham, Gary" <GGraham@courts.az.gov>]

Section 2.3.1 in ECF 4.0 identifies that a message typically consists of three parts: (1) Core Message, (2) Case-type-specific extensions, and (3) Court-specific extension. Section 2.4.3 identifies that the primary extension technique for case-type and court-specific extensions is ‘element substitution’. The ECF-4.0-CoreFilingMessage-Criminal2.xml example included in the specification set illustrates this. In the example xml, <criminal:CriminalCase> is substituted for <nc:Case> in the CoreFilingMessage.

 

CoreFilingMessage is a parameter on the ReviewFiling operation provided by the Filing Review MDE. The ReviewFiling operation has two parameters: (1) CoreFilingMessage, and (2) PaymentMessage (see Appendix C - C.2.1).

 

However, Appendix C.- C.3.1 shows that the RecordFiling operation has four parameters: (1) RecordDocketingMessage, (2) CoreFilingMessage, (3) CaseTypeSpecificMessage, and (4) CourtSpecifcMessage.

 

Since CoreFilingMessage can contain Case-type-specific message and court-specific message what is the purpose of repeating these as separate parameters in RecordFiling?

 

Is this just a documentation error? (note that C.3.1 also identifies xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CaseTypeSpecificMessage.xsd but this xsd is not included in the specification set; case-type-specific xsd’s are included in \xsd\casetype\)