[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Certification Requirements draft for comment
I have
two comments on this draft:
-
Section 5.1 Standards states "If a vendor can fully comply with the
standards and execute an incompatible transaction, then the standards are
incomplete." I am unclear on what is meant by an "incompatible
transaction". Please add a definition or example as to what this might
be.
- I
support the idea, listed as optional in section 5.2 Test Suite, that the
test suite may identify compliance with a defined set of "minimal" or core
requirements, and also "optional", which would be the full set of
functionality. This should remain optional, since initially the test suite
may not make this distinction. But, I would encourage us to support the
development of a suite capable of reporting on compliance with core and optional
features that are agreed to by the TC, and further that it could report on
compliance with individual optional features. This would be very
beneficial to courts who are interested in accepting filings from a vendor; for
example, if a court was not planning to implement digital signatures, the court
might be willing to accept Legal XML filings that are certified to be compliant
with all features except for digital signatures. I think this is a longer
term goal, but something that we should strive to work towards in the
future.
Catherine Krause
E-Filing Project Manager
King County Department of Judicial
Administration
(206)296-7860
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC