OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-courtfiling-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Tab Comments on Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Committee Specification Draft 01 / Public Review Draft 01


Greetings!

Members of the Technical Advisory Board endeavor to comment on all 30
day public review drafts.

Comments on: Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction
Profile Version 5.0 Committee Specification Draft 01 / Public Review
Draft 01 are attached.

It isn't necessary to acknowledge each comment separately. A single
email acknowledging this email will be sufficient.

When the TC has acted on these issues, I would appreciate a pointer to
the TCs resolution as the TAB is tracking the resolution of comments
from TAB members.

Hope everyone is having a great weekend!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau 

Issue key,Issue id,Affects Version/s,Issue Type,Custom field (Proposal),Description
TAB-1683,47919,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,Correct as suggested.,"3 Service Definitions reads in part ""...that imports a WSDL definition..."" ??? What? We don't know which WSDL definitions those are? 

how about: ""that imports one (or more?) of the following WSDL definition files: CourtPolicyMDE.wsdl, CourtRecordMDE.wsdl, CourtSchedulingMDE.wsdl, FilingAssemblyMDE.wsdl, FilingReviewMDE.wsdl, ServiceMDE.wsdl.""

I say (or more) because I don't know if by design more than one can be included."
TAB-1682,47918,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,Correct as suggested.,"2.14 Message Reliability reads in part ""If a court expresses support for message reliability in human-readable court policy,"" is that part of the following MAY clause?

Suggest delete that, capitalize the following A and then write: ""sending MDE MAY include...""

The court's out of standard expressions really have nothing to do with what a process offers or requests.

 "
TAB-1681,47917,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,"Correct the formatting issues, follow the TC Admin styles.","I haven't checked the presentations outside of the HTML version but the mis-alignment of the labels and the references is off-putting and make it hard to read. BTW, if you are going to bold some labels, bold all, not just some.

Oh, the references are a hodge-podge of styles. Use the stylesheets maintained by the TC Admin at: [http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/ietf-rfc-list/ietf-rfc-list.html] and [http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/w3c-recommendations-list/w3c-recommendations-list.html] as your guide. The work has been done for you. Why not just copy and paste?"
TAB-1680,47916,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,"Remove 1.2 and its sub-sections entirely. If conformance to a normative reference is required, specify that in normative language following the normative references.","1.2 Relationship to other XML Specifications and its subsections reflect confusion about the nature of normative references and their use in an OASIS specification.

While I appreciate the effort that went into those sections, they are unnecessary and conflict with normal use of normative references.

Let's take an easy one. 1.2.1 W3C XML Schema 1.0 reads:

""The W3C XML Schema 1.0 ([[XMLSCHEMA11-1|https://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/ecf-webservices/v5.0/csprd01/ecf-webservices-v5.0-csprd01.html#XMLSCHEMA111], [XMLSCHEMA11-2|https://docs.oasis-open.org/legalxml-courtfiling/ecf-webservices/v5.0/csprd01/ecf-webservices-v5.0-csprd01.html#XMLSCHEMA112]]) specification defines an application protocol for imposing constraints on the storage layout and logical structure of data objects using text tags or â??markup.â??  Compliance with the requirements of the XML Schema 1.0 specification is REQUIRED for compliance with this service interaction profile.""

But then a reference for W3C XML Schema is repeated under normative references, and by the way, is never cited again. ???

But you cite WSDL documents, which are themselves required to conform to XML Schema 1.0 so there is no need to cite XML Schema here.

That would be easier to see if you only had the normative references and then we can see if they are cited, or not, in the body of the specification.

 

 

 "
TAB-1679,47915,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,"The 55 known errors should be corrected just as a matter of good editing, the 7 likely problems - don't vary your structure in a way that prevents uniform navigation, the 503 potential problems raises in part the issue of non-meaningful text in hyperlinks. For the most part I think these are false positives but it is something to be mindful of. In a legal document, court decisions or case identifiers are meaningful to lawyers in ways that escape lay readers. ","The accessibility checker at: [https://achecker.ca/checker/index.php] set to WCGA 2.0, level AAA, reports 55 known errors, 7 likely problems and 503 potential problems.

Rather than copy them here, consider them incorporated by reference."
TAB-1678,47914,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,Correct the links as suggested.,"The W3C link checker, [http://validator.w3.org/checklink,] reports the following redirects:

 

!http://validator.w3.org/checklink/images/info_icons/warning.png! Lines: 786, 791 [http://mtgmc.com/] redirected to [https://mtgmc.com/] *Status*: 301 -> 200 OK

This is a permanent redirect. The link should be updated.

!http://validator.w3.org/checklink/images/info_icons/warning.png! Line: 1804 [http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl] redirected to [http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl/] *Status*: 301 -> 200 OK

The link is missing a trailing slash, and caused a redirect. Adding the trailing slash would speed up browsing.

!http://validator.w3.org/checklink/images/info_icons/warning.png! Line:  [https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process] redirected to [https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2017-05-26] *Status*: 301 -> 200 OK

This is a permanent redirect. The link should be updated.

!http://validator.w3.org/checklink/images/info_icons/warning.png! Line: 795 [http://www.azcourts.gov/] redirected to [https://www.azcourts.gov/] *Status*: 301 -> 200 OK

This is a permanent redirect. The link should be updated.

!http://validator.w3.org/checklink/images/info_icons/warning.png! Line: 800 [http://www.tylertech.com/] redirected to [https://www.tylertech.com/] *Status*: 303 -> 200 OK

 

!http://validator.w3.org/checklink/images/info_icons/warning.png! Line: 1789 [http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508] redirected to [http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/] *Status*: 301 -> 200 OK

The link is missing a trailing slash, and caused a redirect. Adding the trailing slash would speed up browsing."
TAB-1677,47908,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,,"The relationship of normative statements and their subject to the type of implementation expected to conform (the conformance target(s)) is unclear.
For example, we see normative requirements in 2.4 ""Operation Addressing"".
but we have hard time to relate these to an implementation type that we ultimately want to conform:

""Each message transmission MUST either identify the operation ...."" What is a ""message transmission""? is that the same as a message? Ultimately does this requirement concern an MDE that issues message? Or another client entity? If not specified in the body of the specification, such connection between the normative req and the entity supposed to conform (a conformance target), should be specified in the conformance clause.

""Each operation MUST be either a REQUIRED operation... "" Same here: what kind of implementation has the ultimate responsibility to conform here?

""The response to a request for an operation not supported by the court MUST be reported ..."" Same here: what implemenation do we have in mind here, that will need to comply to that requirement in order to conform to the specification? Who is responsible for sending these responses?


It is OK to have normative requirements targeting various objects or exchanges, but there must be a clear association with a conformance target. A conformance clause should do this if not the specification body. Like:

4. Conformance (section)
4.1 Conformance targets:
 * sending MDE
 * receiving MDE
 * ...

4.2 Conformance clause for a ""receiving MDE"":
An MDE conforming to this specification as a ""receiving MDE"" is an MDE that :
- implements operations that satisfy requirements in 2.4, ....
- interprets received messages accordig to requirements in 2.5, ...
- generate responses and errors as required in 2.4, 2.6, 2.14, ...

- ..."
TAB-1676,47907,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,,"The very terse and vague Conformance section is not what a reader or implementer would expect in order to help conform to this specification.

See on TAB public page the list of guidelines: [https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tab|http://example.com/]
See the ""Guidelines to Writing Conformance Clauses for OASIS Specifications "" : [http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/TCHandbook/ConformanceGuidelines.html|http://example.com/]

First of all, what is an ""implementation""? there seems to be different types (which would be normal), but which normative requirement applies to which type?
In other words, what are the possible conformance targets? what kind of object or product do we allow to claim conformance? is it:
- a Service Interaction Profile?
- each ECF exchange? (Message) (some normative requirements appear to these)
- Major Design Elements (MDEs)? 
- An MDE operation?


A well formed conformance section should include:
- definitions of the valid conformance targets (types of implementation for this specification that we'd expect to claim conformance.)
- for each conformance target, a conformance clause.
Refer to the TAB conformance clauses guideline for the writing of a well-formed conformance clause."
TAB-1675,47906,Electronic Court Filing Web Services Service Interaction Profile Version 5.0,Bug,,"Section 3: Services definitions:
This very short section seems to be lacking necessary details.
""...MUST be described in a WSDL file that imports a WSDL definition file included with this specification.""
Where is that precise included ""WSDL definition file""? there is no reference to it.I do not see any in the annex."

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]