Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Final draft of Interoperability SOW

[Dallas Powell <dpowell@tybera.com>]

Shane,
sorry for the delay in answering your request.

As you are aware, many of the previously defined Statements of Work were
halted in the Las Vegas meeting.  One most notable would be the Court Policy
document.  Both you and I voiced our opinions against the Court Policy in
earlier messages, and neither of us could see how such a document would
describe enough information to make it possible for an EFSP application to
interoperate with other vendors EFMs.

Also in the Las Vegas meeting, a proposed document defining layers of
interoperability was presented.  And as the committee reviewed the document
we could see that there were many aspects of the proposed interoperability
document that were too restrictive in nature.  As I recall we did not get
past the first level of interoperability.  From this discussion many voiced
the opinion that Court Filing 1.1 did not have adequate information to make
interoperability possible.

From this evolved a recognition that defining business models and creating
DTDs still does not provide adequate information too assist courts studying
the standards to feel confident that they have captured all the aspects of
the standard such that interoperability will happen.  I am confident that my
EFM will work not work with your EFSP, do you agree?  I was of the
impression that you had to extend the CF 1.1 elements within your product to
make your system function, we did also.

Under the SOW I distributed the main task that was assigned to me was to
describe how interoperability "might" take place with Court Filing 1.1.  As
I recall, one person voiced their opinion that it was not possible.  I have
taken the liberty of extending the original request to include a living
document to be used and modified as we develop Court Filing Blue in an
effort to help steer the definitions into a direction that will educate
courts seeking to adopt the standard to understand the complexities of
interoperability based on specific Business models that will be define under
the Dwight's committee.

Does this help?  If so, I will include this information in the expansion of
the document.

Dallas Powell



----- Original Message -----
From: "Durham, Shane (LNG-CL)" <Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com>
To: "Electronic Court Filing TC"
<legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>; "'Dallas Powell'"
<dpowell@tybera.com>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 11:08 AM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Final draft of Interoperability SOW


>
> I confess...
> ...from the document, I just don't 'get' what this group is going to be
> working on.
>
> It might be an issue of my reading it in the wrong context... or maybe
it's
> just my condition of Friday brain-lock ( I mean, sheeesh, tomorrow is
> Saturday.. how am I supposed to be focused on anything today!?!?  :-) )
>
> If Dwight's 'Models' group is working on a general architecture/API model
> for LegalXML...
>
> ...and, if Tom's 'Certification' group, is working on the criteria by
which
> the API, or implementations, will be assessed for supporting
> inter-operability (and other LegalXML goals)....
>
> ...then I no longer recall what this 'Layered Interoperability' group is
> working on?  And it isn't clear to me from the SOW document.
>
> Dallas, could you provide a few statements to further clarify this group's
> mission to me?  I will then re-read the SOW and see if it makes more sense
> to me.
>
> Thank you,
> Shane Durham
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:05 PM
> To: Electronic Court Filing TC
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Final draft of Interoperability SOW
>
>
> Attached is a draft of the Layered Interoperability SOW.
>
> Dallas
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>