I’m resending as this email appears to be missing from the comment archives.
Jim Cabral
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
www.mtgmc.com
(206) 442-5010
Phone
(502) 509-4532
Mobile
Helping our clients make a difference in the lives of the people they serve.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you
received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
From: Joe Mierwa [mailto:Joe.Mierwa@urlintegration.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 8:18 PM
To: 'legalxml-courtfiling-comment@lists.oasis-open.org'
Cc: James E Cabral
Subject: LegalXML Electronic Court Filing 4.01 feedback - The Filing-Preparation-to-Docketing Process Model
Importance: Low
Hello,
I have been parsing through the ECF 4.0.1 for the purposes of developing a compliancy matrix with which to measure our development compliance to the ECF and have the following comments to the specification.
Item 1:
In section 3.1, “The Filing-Preparation-to-Docketing Process Model”, the statements
“At any point during or after the ReviewFiling operation, a party MAY access information through the following operations:
·
GetFilingList
·
GetFilingStatus
At any point after the NotifyFilingReviewComplete operation, a party MAY access information through the following operations:
·
GetCaseList
·
GetCase
·
GetDocument”
appear to be either incomplete or inconsistent or superfluous as the only way I can interpret this is that the party here is either a user of Filing Assembly MDE or a user of the Filing Review MDE and are unqualified in that these statements
only make sense when the case or filing in question is expected to be accessible. I would suggest adding the qualification if possible.
Item 2:
Section 3.2.12, lines 640-642. Shouldn’t the “may” in sentence “The Filing Assembly MDE may also limit the amount of case detail returned from the Court Record MDE by using a set of filters” be capitalized as “MAY”?
Item 3:
Section 3.3.3.2, lines 763-763. Shouldn’t the “may” in sentence “The payment may include a maximum amount for the payment if some latitude is needed to accomplish the filing” be capitalized as “MAY”?
Item 4:
Section 3.4, lines 809-811. Shouldn’t the phrase “courts are cautioned against, but not prohibited from” be replaced with “SHOULD NOT” in “While an ROA transaction is awaiting acceptance or rejection in the
destination court, and when the target case consists of multiple records, courts are cautioned against, but not prohibited from, sending additional amendment transactions intended for the same record for the same target case”? It seems that the usage as stated
is not in alignment with RFC 2119, or is this informative text? I ask because the statement implies functional behavior.
Best Regards
|
Joe Mierwa |
|
|
|
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in
error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.