----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:42
AM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt
Lake minutes
Hi, John,
I think it would be fine if you were to take the Forms matter
as far as you describe in your message here (below), and for the TC to form a
drafting committee to take the work from that point forward. I know that I had
expressed interest in helping with this specification and I expect there will
be others. Your taking on the "preparatory work and report[ing] back to the
full TC what [you see] as the steps, tasks and hurdles to creating a Court
Filing Forms Scope and Requirements Document" would be a good first step. It
might help if it were presented as the "Statement of Work" deliverable that I
have recommended in the procedures submitted earlier for TC
consideration.
Thank you for your efforts with this!
Regards,
Roger
Roger Winters
Electronic Court Records
Manager
King County Department of Judicial
Administration
MS: KCC-JA-0609
516 Third Ave., E-609
Seattle, Washington
98104-2386
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
Roger.Winters@metrokc.gov <mailto:Roger.Winters@metrokc.gov>
-----Original Message-----
From: John
Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:33 AM
To: John M. Greacen; Court Filing List
Cc: Dr.
Laurence Leff
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt
Lake minutes
I think Dr. Leff is to be commended on the comprehensiveness
of his notes. I
do have a request for a few
clarifications.
1. I had understood at the Salt Lake meeting and from our
Charter that all
decisions of the TC would be made on
the list and not in the F2F meetings,
in order to
enable non-meeting-attendee participants an opportunity to
participate in the voting. To my understanding, a group of TC
participants
not at the meeting did not participate in
all of these decisions: being
those members who called
in on the bridge but for one reason or another
could
not actually remain on the line or hear sufficiently well to
participate. Do I have this understanding correctly? If so, should
there be
some follow-up procedure to finalize the
decisions listed in the minutes?
2. With regard to the Forms preliminary work, I had understood
that I was to
do preparatory work and report back to
the full TC what I saw as the steps,
tasks and hurdles
to creating a Court Filing Forms Scope and Requirements
Document, and not also actually to prepare such a Document myself. I
would
prefer to proceed with the preparatory work, in
part because there is no
clear standardized method for
creating XML forms, and this may present
special
issues that were not present with regard to CF 1.1 and CD 1.1.
However, if it is the sense of the TC that I should actually
go forward with
a Court Filing Forms Scope and
Requirements Document, I respectfully ask for
other
volunteers to assist me in this task.
Otherwise, I am in agreement with the minutes as
posted.
----- Original Message -----
From:
"John M. Greacen" <john@greacen.net>
To: "Court
Filing List" <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: "Dr. Laurence Leff" <D-Leff@wiu.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 5:28 PM
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Salt Lake minutes
> Dr. Leff has some technical problem that prevents him
from communicating
> with the list at the
moment. He has asked me to post the minutes from
> the Salt Lake meeting. Remember that these will become
official within
> ten days unless you bring some
mistake to our attention. I very much
>
appreciate Dr. Leff's efforts to produce this record of the meeting and
> our conclusions.
>
>
>
Minutes Meeting of June 20 and June 21st, 2002
>
in Salt Lake City, Utah
> The OASIS Legal XML
Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical
>
Committee
>
> These
minutes cover both the Conference call from 15:00 to 17:00
> Mountain
> Daylight Time on June 20th
and the Face-To-Face held for two full days
>
on
> June 20th to June 21st.
>
> The abbreviation *TC* or *(TC)* means
that the action was conducted
> and/or
> ratified during the formal Teleconference. Items
without the *(TC)*
> prefix
> occurred only at the Face to Face but not during the
teleconference.
>
>
*(TC)* Present at the Teleconference:
> Mohyeddin
Abdulaziz,
> Gregory W. Arnold,
> E. Jerome Battle,
> Donald
Bergeron,
> Karl Best,
>
Terrie Bousquin,
> Toby Brown,
> Rolly Chambers
> Tom Clarke,
> Dwight R. Daniels,
> Shane
Durham,
> Robin Gibson,
> Charles Gilliam,
> John Greacen,
> Allen Jensen,
> Catherine
Krause,
> Dr. Laurence Leff,
> Diane Lewis,
> Mary Campbell
McQueen,
> John Messing,
> Gary Pinder,
> Dallas Powell,
> Moira O'Leary Rowley,
> John
Ruegg,
> Tom Smith,
>
Steve Spohn,
> Khaleel Thotti,
> Roger Winters,
> Sean Wood,
> Mark S. Yuan
>
> *(TC)* Observers Present:
>
Nathan Probst,
> Benjamin T. Wilson
>
> *(TC)* John Greacen called
the official Teleconference to order.
>
> *(TC)* Karl Best introduced OASIS, the Organization for
the Advancement
> of
>
Structured Information Standards.
>
> *(TC)* John Greacen asked if he had authority, as
chairperson, to excuse
> persons
> who might have missed the first meeting due to exigent
circumstances
> including
> illness. Karl Best said that such individuals would now be
in observer
> status as per OASIS
guidelines.
>
> *(TC)*
John Greacen confirmed our consensus policy, that all actions at
> the
> meetings will be
confirmed on the list, and that electronic mail votes
> are official votes. The Technical Committee agreed that when
the chair
> declares
>
that consensus exists, the OASIS requirements of "2/3 vote of TC
> members,
> with no more than
1/4 objecting" will be considered to have been met.
> All electronic mailing lists for the Technical Committee will be
hosted
> by OASIS. The Technical Committee
modified the third special operating
> rule
> contained in the charter to limit the requirement that
electronic mail
> discussion take place on OASIS
supported list serves to "official" email
>
> discussions.
>
> *(TC)* John Greacen, as chairperson of the Technical
Committee, would be
>
>
the ombudsman for the purpose of receiving and dealing with comments on
> the public comments list for the Electronic Court Filing
Technical
> Committee.
>
The chairperson of each subcommittee shall act as ombudsman for the
> public comments list for their subcommittee.
>
> *(TC)* The following
subcommittees have been merged:
> Query and
Response and CMS API. The combined committee will be
> responsible
> for Court Data
Configuration as well. Ms. Moira Rowley will chair the
> combined committee.
>
> *(TC)* The Court Document Subcommittee was formed. It will
be chaired
> by
>
Messrs. John Messing, Mohyeddin Abdulaziz, and Rolly L. Chambers.
>
> *(TC)* The Court Filing
Policy Subcommittee was formed.
> Don Bergeron will
chair this subcommittee.
>
> *(TC)* A Trusted Specification Repository Subcommittee was
formed.
> This committee will search for an
appropriate place to keep our
>
specification
> for legal and archival
reasons. Karl Best of Oasis was also asked to
> look into this issue.
> He said that
other Oasis Technical Committees raised this issue.
> Ms. Diane Lewis will chair this subcommittee.
>
> *(TC)* The creation of a Court Forms
Subcommittee will wait until the
> requirements are
done. These will be authored by John Messing.
>
> *(TC)*
> A
suggestion was made to set up a separate subcommittee for the Court
> Filing
> standard. The
Technical Committee chose not to set up a subcommittee
> at this time; it will continue to handle this specification
in the
> entire
>
committee.
>
>
*(TC)*
> The group reviewed its list of
deliverables:
> 1) *(TC)*
> The Electronic Court Filing 1.0 specification and the
Electronic
> Court Filing 1.1 specification and DTD
will be posted. Electronic Court
>
> Filing 1.1 and its DTD have been recommended by the
JSD
> team for the approval by the National
Consortium and the Joint
> Technology
> Committee for late July 2002. This specification
is frozen, unless it
> is
> modified by the National Consortium or the Joint Technology
Committee
> in the course of the approval
process.
>
> 2)
*(TC)*
> The Query and Response 1.0 committee will
report within two weeks.
> It will "put its best
efforts" to have a product or a specification.
>
This supports queries from court users to courts for
> case and document information.
>
> 3) *(TC)*
> The Court
Document 1.0 specification and DTD will be completed by
> September
> 2002. It will
be transmitted to the JSD team, the National
>
Consortium, and the Joint Technology Committee for Consideration
> at their December 2002 meeting.
>
> 4) *(TC)*
> The Case Management System Application Program interface will
be
> developed by December 2002. This will
specify a standard interface
> between court case
management information systems and
> electronic
filing applications using the Electronic Court Filing 1.1
> specification.
>
> 5) *(TC)*
> The Court Filing Policy 1.0
specification and DTD or Schema will be
> developed
by December 2002. This will be used to convey local court
> policies
> and conventions to
electronic filing users.
>
> 6) *(TC)*
> No specific date has been
set for the delivery of Electronic Court
> Filing
2.0 specification. This will include the use of schemas,
> the Simple Object Application Protocol and possibly
ebXML messaging,
> changes that may occur in the
reconciled criminal justice
> XML development and
the use of XML Digital Signatures.
>
> Note, the ebXML liaison was separately charged to
investigate the use
> of the ebXML messaging
standard for use in electronic court filing.
>
> 7) *(TC)*
> A tutorial and diagramming of the relationship between the
components
> and specifications shall be
prepared.
>
>
*(TC)*
> The committee decided that Oasis Members
who are not members of the
> Technical Committee
shall not subscribe to the Technical Committee List.
>
> *(TC)*
>
The Committee will move specifications to the
> the
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
> for
> adoption as an OASIS
standard as a usual course of business.
>
> *(TC)*
> Ms. Mary McQueen was
nominated as co-Chair by Moira Rowley.
> The
nomination was second by Roger Winters. Approved by acclimation.
>
> *(TC)*
> Dr. Laurence Leff was elected secretary.
>
> *(TC)*
>
Ms. Robin Gibson was elected as Web Master.
>
> *(TC)* Mr. Rogers Winters was elected
Technical Committee editor.
> One of his first
duties is to investigate the
> suitability of OASIS
specification templates for the TC's work.
>
> Editors for specific documents were chosen as
follows:
>
> 1)
*(TC)*
> Court Policy XML: Khaleel Thotti
>
> 2) *(TC)*
> Court Policy XML Requirements: Don Bergeron
>
> 3) *(TC)*
> Rule Based XML: Laurence L. Leff
>
> 4) *(TC)*
> CMS-API XML: Shane Durham
>
> 5) *(TC)*
> Query &
Response: Dwight Daniels
>
> 6) *(TC)*
> Court Document: Mohyeddin
Abdulaziz, Rolly Chambers, John Messing
>
> 7) *(TC)*
> Court Data
Configuration XML: Shane Durham
>
> 8) *(TC)*
> Court Form XML
requirements: John Messing
>
> 9) *(TC)*
> Electronic Court Filing 1.1
and 2.0: Robin Gibson
>
> Liasons to other groups were chosen as follows:
> 1) *(TC)*
> Robin Gibson and John
Greacen, United States Department of Justice,
>
Global
> Justice Information Network Advisory
Committee, Infrastructure
> Standards Working Group
XML Data Dictionary Subcommittee
> 2) *(TC)*
> Dr. Laurence Leff, International Association for
Artificial Intelligence
>
> and Law
> 3) *(TC)*
> Dr. Laurence Leff, ebXML
> 4)
*(TC)*
> Toby Brown, Property Records Industry
Joint Task Force
> 5) *(TC)*
> Ms. Diane Lewis, XML.gov.
>
> Ms. Lewis will also investigate other groups,
particularly other
> OASIS Technical Committees,
with
> which we should liaison.
>
> *(TC)*
>
In no event shall this Technical Committee approve any specification,
> if the use would involve unauthorized infringements of
any third party
> rights
> known to the technical committee, and such third party has not
agreed to
>
> provide
these license rights on a perpetual, royalty-free,
> non-discriminatory
> basis.
>
> *(TC)*
> The Technical Committee Adopted the Electronic Court Filing
1.1
> specification
> as
a proposed committee specification for review by members of the
> Technical
> Committee,
recognizing the specification has been frozen for use by
> implementers. Comments submitted will be considered for
incorporation
> into
>
future versions of the specification.
>
> *(TC)*
> The Technical
Committee adopted the Court Document 1.1 specification as
> a
> proposed committee specification
for review by members of the Technical
>
Committee
>
>
*(TC)*
> Mr. John Messing presented the proposed
Court Document 1.0 Standard.
> He agreed to respond
on the list to the following points:
> 1) The
relationship between Court Filing and Court Document.
> 2) The relationship between Court Document and Rap Sheets
> and Incident Reports.
> 3)
Expansion of the scope to include data modelling
>
for legal terms that should be tagged within a document.
> (Diane Lewis and John Greacen offered to provide a list of
elements that
> courts may require
> filers to tag in order to be able to redact the data from
publicly
> available versions of the
document.)
> 4) The use of Court Document 1.0 for
Court Forms. Note that Mr. John
>
Messing
> was charged to prepare a Court Forms
requirement specification.
> 5) The need for a
"simplified" subset of Court Document 1.0, nicknamed
> "Court Document Light."
> 6)
Coordination with efforts underway in some states to create XML
> document specifications and with repositories of such
documents, such as
> the
> property records industry joint task force.
> 7) Detailed Technical issues as communicated by private letters to
the
> draft specification authors.
> 8) Contextual meaning of elements within the
specification/consistency
> of
> elements between Electronic Court Filing 1.1 and Court Document
1.1.
> 9) Robustness - Are three levels
enough?
> 10) Treatment of attachments and the
relationships between attachments
> in Electronic
Court Filing 1.1 and Court Document 1.1.
>
> Ms. Robin Gibson reported on the status of the work of
the XML Data
> Dictionary Subcommittee of
> the Infrastructure Standards Working Group of the
> Global Justice Information Network Advisory Committee of
the US
> Department of Justice. Four
> groups, including the Legal XML predecessor of
the
> Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee,
have produced a "reconciled
> justice data
> dictionary" containing over 300 elements. The
Subcommittee
> plans to convert that dictionary
into an XML schema, to convert to upper
> camel
case element
> names, to expand the scope of the
dictionary by
> implementing an object oriented
approach and including data elements
> identified
by integrated
> justice projects in Minnesota and
Los Angeles, and
> ultimately to produce an
RDF-based dictionary.
>
> Mr. Greg Arnold reported that the Standards for Electronic
Filing
> Processes
>
have been circulated for a month for public comment and will be put
into
>
> final form by
the drafting committee the last week of June for
>
submission to
> the National Consortium and Joint
Technology Committee in late July.
> The
> Joint Technology Committee will circulate them for an
additional 60-day
> comment period following its
July meeting.
>
> Mr.
Arnold also reported that the Open XML Court Interface project is
> proceeding
> to develop an
RFP to procure a software product that can serve as a
> common middleware for XML-based electronic filing
applications. The
> state of
> Georgia will procure the middleware and make it available (at a
minimum
> cost that will support its maintenance
and enhancement) to all states,
> courts,
> and private vendors. The RFP should be released by
the end of this
> calendar year. OXCI is not
a project of the Electronic Court Filing
>
Technical
> Committee or of OASIS. It is an
open source software development effort
>
> being undertaken by a group of a dozen interested state
court systems.
>
> Mr.
Shane Durham reported on the deliberations of the CMS-API
> subcommittee.
>
> Appreciations were given to the hosts E. Jerome Brattle and Dan
Becker
> from the Utah State Courts and Toby Brown
of the Utah State Bar.
>
> Ms. Catherine Krause, Ms. Diane Lewis, Mr. Tom Smith and Mr.
Dallas
> Powell
>
presented a revised Interoperability Specification. This will be
used
> to
> determine
when standards have had sufficient use and experience in the
> real
> world before advancement to the
OASIS standard level and for
>
recommendation
> to the Joint Technology
Committee. The phrase "Joint Technology
>
Committee"
> includes the National Consortium for
State Court Automation Standards,
> a subcommittee
of the Joint Technology Committee of the Conference of
> State
> Court Administrators (COSCA)
and National Association for Court
>
Management
> (NACM). Ms. Krause's
subcommittee will incorporate the comments made
>
during
> the meeting into the subcommittee draft
and post it to the list for
> further
> comment and for resolution shortly following the
meeting, so that the
> definition can be presented
to the Joint Technology Committee in late
>
July.
>
> It was pointed
out that at least two courts are almost in the last phase
>
> of implementation and the Georgia
Courts Automation Committee has
> completed their
Interoperability study.
>
> Ms. Diane Lewis discussed the importance of OASIS branding for her
work
> within the Department of Justice Office of
United States Attorneys and
> her plans to rapidly
deploy and test an XML electronic filing
>
application
> based on the Electronic Court Filing
1.1 specification. Thus, it
> appears
that
> the Technical Committee will have statements
from three members that
> they are
> using the standard. This is a requirement for advancing to
an OASIS
> standard
>
from a committee specification.
>
> The members present adopted the goal of satisfactory testing of
the
> Electronic Court Filing 1.1 specification
within six months-- by the
> end
> of this calendar year.
>
> The committee discussed vendors of
court filing software claiming to be
> "Legal XML"
compliant. This might negatively impact the Legal XML
> "brand."
> Mr. Tom Clark will head up a
certification committee to review how such
>
systems could be certified as compliant. Members of the committee
will
> include
> Shane
Durham, John Messing, Dallas Powell, and Diane Lewis.
>
> Concerns were discussed regarding
receiving reports from vendors and
> others
> about their experiences in implementing the
standard.
>
> Mr. Don
Bergeron presented a requirements list for Court Policy XML.
> Additions were taken from the membership of the meeting--and
Mr.
> Bergeron
> was
charged to post a revised version to the list.
>
> Ms. Robin Gibson stated the current
requirements for the Electronic
> Court Filing 2.0
specification:
> 1) incorporation of ebXML and/or
SOAP
> 2) use of XML Schema
> 3) more complete specification of acknowledgement messages
> 4) incorporation of lessons learned from implementations
of Electronic
> Court
>
Filing 1.1
> 5) incorporation of object-oriented
Justice Data Dictionary Schema or
> RDF being
developed by the XML Data Dictionary Subcommittee
>
> She will formalize these requirements
for comment on the list.
>
> Meeting dates were chosen as follows:
>
1) October 3rd and 4th, 2002, Boston.
> Dr. Leff
will follow up with Daniel Greenwood
> at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology regarding meeting location.
> 2) December 12th and 13th, 2002, Las Vegas, Dr.
Leff will follow up
> with
> Clark County Court system regarding the meeting location. He
will also
> follow up on getting the special rate
from the hotel being used by the
> National State
Courts Electronic Filing Conference.
> 3) April
2003, Atlanta
> 4) July 2003, Seattle
> 5) October 2003, Chicago, St. Louis, or Macomb Illinois.
The latter is
> the home of Western Illinois
University.
>
> Salt
Lake City and Orange County, California offered to serve as
> alternate
> sites should any of these
sites fall through.
>
>
The Technical Committee will post on its web site the Court Filing 1.1
> proposed
> Committee
Specification, the Court Document proposed Committee
> Specification,
> the Rule Based XML
proposal, and all documents hosted previously
> on
courtxml.org. It is anticipated that courtxml.org will be a
pointer
> to the
> Legal
XML Court Filing Technical Committee web site.
>
> The cochairs will ask OASIS to create
lists for the subcommittees
> established
> by the Technical Committee.
>
> Mr. John Messing reported on the
importance of signatures in the legal
> system in
general and our work in electronic court filing. Also, he
> reported
> on the
relationship of our work with the proposed eNotarization group.
> He also
> demonstrated
technology to allow for the digital signature
> of
documents and verification of that document, allowing production of
> "a
> certified copy" of any
document that might be in a case file.
>
> Mr. Dallas Powell shared how Tyberas' work in court
filing changed
> when it was made to comply with
Legal XML Court Filing specifications.
> He also
demonstrated his technology, and how it is used in debt
> collection cases.
>
> Dr. Laurence L. Leff reported on a pending grant to the
National
> Institute
>
of Justice to study Criminal Justice automation and on a pending grant
> to the National Science Foundation to teach
undergraduates rule-based
> processing, XML, Legal
XML court filing and court document standards,
>
civil procedure, and ebXML-based electronic commerce.
>
> --
> John
M. Greacen
> Greacen Associates, LLC.
> 18 Fairly Road
> Santa Fe,
NM 87507
> 505-471-0203
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>