RE: [legalxml-courtfiling-policy] OASIS LegalXML ECF Court PolicyRequirements document

["Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>]

Given two votes to not concur, I am withdrawing this draft from consideration. I will post a timeline for reworking working this on the Court Filing Policy list on Monday.

 

Both Christopher Smith and Shane Durham raised good points that need addressing. I look forward to their participation in defining further action.

 

Regards,

 

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Christopher [mailto:Christopher.Smith@jud.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 11:36 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Thomas. J. Smith (E-mail)
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling-policy] OASIS LegalXML ECF Court Policy Requirements document

I believe this is my initial posting on this discussion group, so let me introduce myself first.  My name is Christopher Smith of the California Administrative Office of the Courts.  I am now the voting member for the California AOC.    

 

I have concerns regarding the inconsistent structure of the ECF Court Policy Requirements. There seems to be considerable confusion about how Court Policy, CDC, and Query-Response are interrelated. This document appears to define elements of CDC (it shouldn't), hypothesizes a <getPolicy> query that does not exist in the latest version of the Query and Response specification, and includes requirements for a publish-and-subscribe capability that isn't in any version of the EFM-CMS API requirements document. 

 

Additionally, there is insufficient narrative describing the intent of each requirement and many requirements are unclear or need further explanation.  Finally, these Requirements do not include anything substantive on conformance and interoperability test requirements, despite the proposal for such in Salt Lake City and the work of the Washington State contingent since then. 

 

As I have strong misgivings about the suitability of the document as the basis for a useful specification, I vote to not accept it in its current state.

 

Christopher Smith

Information Services Department

California Administrative Office of the Courts