Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Official Transmission of Minutes from the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Court Filing Technical Committee Secretary

["Dallas Powell" <dpowell@tybera.com>]

This comment is regarding the reports that identify modifications to CF 1.1
that both Tybera, King County, and CourtLink will provide.  I do not believe
that a report is adequate.

I feel that in the meeting it was not clearly stated, but my impression is
that in order for the TC to maintain control, a proper report needs to be
submitted to the TC.  Also, for a report to be a recognized "report" or
"addendum" the modifications must be presented to the TC and reviewed to
insure that the intent has not extended the standard into areas that we do
not agree with.

If we do not require a formal procedure then it opens the door for anyone to
use the excuse that they changed the standard and they are still conforming,
which to me means that the TC lost control of what they are trying to
protect.

Dallas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Laurence Leff" <D-Leff@wiu.edu>
To: <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 11:15 PM
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Official Transmission of Minutes from the
OASIS Legal XML Member Section Court Filing Technical Committee Secretary


>
> The chairperson has asked to set a deadline for responses or corrections
> to these minutes (April 17th and April 18th) as well as those for the
> teleconference of March 11th.
>
> They will represent official decisions of the Technical Committee unless
> someone objects before then.
>
>                 Minutes Meeting of April 17th and April 18th
>                              in Atlanta, Georgia
> The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical
Committee
>
> These minutes cover the two Conference calls from 15:00 to 16:00 on
> April 17th and 13:00 to 14:00 on April 18th.  They also cover the
Face-To-Face
> held for two full days on April 17th and April 18th, 2003
>
> 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 Teleconferences or meeting:
>
> Mohyeddin Abdulaziz
> Greg Arnold
> Don Bergeron
> Jim Cabral
> Shane Durham
> Rolly Chambers
> Robin Gibson
> John Greacen
> Allen Jensen
> Catherine Krause
> Dr. Laurence Leff
> Diane Lewis
> Rex McElrath
> Mary McQueen
> Robert O'Brien
> Dallas Powell
> John Ruegg
> Tony Rutkowski
> Roger Winters
>
> 1. Introductory discussion
>
> John Greacen started the meeting and reviewed the agenda.  There was a
> discussion of the responsibilities of the Technical Committee's
> representative to the Legal XML Steering Committee.  We also reviewed
> the history of the Legal XML Steering Committee going back to the old
> Legal XML organization.
>
> The National Center for State Courts has registered our Court Filing 1.1
> standard on the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs standards
> registry web site.
>
> He noted that the following documents have been approved by the Joint
Technology
> Committee as proposed standards for comment experimental use:
> Court Document 1.1, Court Filing 1.0, Court Filing 1.1, Query and Response
1.1
>
> The Technical Committee has not recommended any of these for Recommended
> satus as the interoperability tests are not complete.
>
> 2) Subcommittee Reports (Electronic Filing Process Models and Layered
>    Interoperability)
>
> Mr. Shane Durham gave the report for The Electronic Filing Process Models
> subcommittee.
>
> They prepared a draft matrix format for describing an electronic filing
system.
>
> The goal is to obtain systems descriptions from many courts nad vendors
with
> operating efiling systems to ensure that the
> Technical Committee understands the requirements of existing systems
before
> developing Court Filing Blue.
>
> (TC) The survey will include a table that was shared among those present,
> intro material and a Visio diagram.
>
> Mr. Dallas Powell gave the Interoperability Committee report.
> He described a template that defines "points of intersection."
> An example intersection was batch upload.  The template identifies
> what is needed to make the interface points interoperable.
> For instance, there need to be agreements concerning the XML schema used
> (including extensions), credit cards supported, document format,
> authentication methodology, and message protocol.
>
> A group may later come up with an API based upon this.
>
> It might describe how technologies such as ebXML, http, or SOAP might be
> used to implement the standard.  (The ebXML report might include how
> Collaboration Protocol Agreements  and Collaboration Protocol Profiles
> might be used.)  John Ruegg agreed to draft a model description of the
> requirements for standardized use of ebXML to serve as an example of how
> this template could be used.
>
>
> Mr. Powell reported on extensions made in Utah and outlined a
> lifecycle for a court filing starting with the attorney,  and continuing
> with the Electronic Filing Service Provider, Electronic Filing
> Manager and Court electronic Document Management System.  Every submission
> gets four status updates and finally a legal XML envelope.  This contains
> a printable document.
>
> He also discussed issues of using XML signatures and "lock"ing information
> inside the envelope.
>
> Some vendors are making some modifications in the standard in order to
> resolve practical problems in implementation.  Mr. Powell listed the
> modifications made for the Utah project.  The group discussed whether
> the modifications made by the Utah project were backward compatible.
> There were also concerns about the credibility loss with the court
> community and Joint Technology Committee if a new standard came out
> with changes that were not compatible with previous versions of the
> standards.
>
> Also, many expressed concern that Court Filing Blue come out soon and
> concern whether there would be enough resources to do both Court
> Filing 1.2 and Court Blue.
>
> (Hereafter, 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))
>
> (The phrase "Court Filing Blue" is a code name for the next major
> implementation of the Court Filing standard.  This code name was selected
> in December at the Las Vegas Face-to-Face.)
>
> (TC)  The Technical Committee decided not to expend further work on the
> 1.x version of the Court Filing Stnadard.  Instead, it will publish all
> reports received on implementatations of the standard, identifying
> deficiencies and modifications made to overcome them.  To be included in
these
> reports will be documents from Court Link, Tybera, and the schema
developed
> by MTG (with explanatory comments developed by Jim Cabral.)
>
> The Technical Committe heard reports from vendors that courts are
> demanding assurances from them that their systems "comply with" Court
> Filing 1.1.  The TC decided to  draft a statement provided they
> document the differences and submit a report to the Technical
> Committee.  (Mr. Greacen will propose the exact wording and try to
> avoid the word "compliant.")
>
> 3. JXDDS
>
> Ms. Gibson discussed meetings of the Justice XML Data Dictionary Schema
> Task Force (JXDDS) sponsored by the Georgia Tech Research Institute
> (GTRI).  They are now in a 60 day "pre-release" comment period.
> They are soliciting for pilots which will get federally-funded support
from
> JXDDS to try to implement the 3.0 product following modfications resulting
> from the comment round.
>
> Discussion included:
> 1) usability
> 2) the level in the hierarchy at which various concepts and their
corresponding
>    XML was placed
> 3) whether an "attorney" should be considered a "judicial officer"
> 4) whether the technical committee should only look at those pieces
>    relevant to court filing.  It was noted that the technical committee
>    also has a court document standard and is a source of expertise on
>    the "intersection" of XML and courts
>
> The people at the face-to-face committed to review this document from
various
> points of view.  The Technical Committee also thanked Rex McElrath,
> Robin Gibson, Ed Papps and Greg Arnold for their work in representing the
> Technical Committee and the court community in JXDDS.
>
> Ms. Gibson will act as a relay for comments from this Technical Committee
> and wishes to get them by May 19th.   Of course, interested members can
> submit directly to the feedback page at it.ojp.gov
>
> Mr. Annold is attempting to obtain a simplified presentation of the
objects and
> associated elements to faciliate review of the data dictionary ans schema.
>
> 4. OXCI
>
> (TC) There was a report regarding the Open-source XML Court Interface
(OXCI)
> from Mr. Cabral.  He reviewed the various technical decisions outlined
> in the proposed appendix to the Request For Proposal.  The document is at
>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-courtfiling/200303/msg00018.ht
ml
>
> The Technical Committee agreed that the draft Court Filing schema that
> Mr. Cabral prepared would be considered a comment on Court Filing 1.1 and
not
> as a strawman for Court Filing Blue.
>
> 5. Governance Issues
>
> (TC) During the Thursday teleconference, there were two nominations for
> the Technical Committee's representative to the Legal XML Steering
> committee: Mr. John Aerts and Roger Winters.  There were no new
> nominations on the teleconference.   Voting was to close with the
> Friday teleconference; members would be able to vote by electronic mail
> by posting to the mailing list.
>
> On Friday, there were four votes from the list via electronic mail,
> several on the phone, and ten from the members physically present at
> the face-to-face.   The final vote was fifteen for Mr. Winters, one
> abstention, and four for Mr. Aerts.  Both Mr. Aerts and Mr. Winters
> were thanked for being willing to serve.  It was noted that there might
> be other openings on the steering committee for which Mr. Aerts could
> run (either from Integrated Justice TC or as an at-large member.)
>
> 6. Court Document standard.
>
> Mr. Chambers gave a report on efforts to update the Court Document
standard
> for use with Schema and the above-described JXDDS data dictionary.
>
> The discussion included:
>
> 1) the treatment of a document with several attachments.
> Both Court Document and Court Filing provide for attachments.  Is there
any
> basis on which to decide which attachments will be included within Court
> Document and which will be submitted as additonal documents within Court
> Filing.
>
> E. G., Assume there was an XML document obeying the Court Document
standard
> with two attachments.  Assume
> it becomes one of the documents as part of a court filing envelope.  Would
> that court filing have three BLOB's attached or only one BLOB.
> 2) Does a signature apply to the attachments?   Relatedly, does a
signature
> exist for the purposes of non-repudiation using a digital "hash?"
> Or, does it have legal significance as attesting to the verisimilitude of
> the document?
> 3) the difference between "Certificate of Service" and "Return of Service"
> A suggestion was made that a certificate of service be created as a
document separate from the paper to which it applied.
> 4) Printer fidelity with XML.  The XML from a court document prepared
> with the Court Document standard is displayed with a browser.
> With current browser technology, XML documents with style sheets display
> differently with different browsers.
>
> Many were concerned that this creates a serious barrier to judge and
attorney
> acceptance of XML documents.
> Would the attorney accept a situation where the
> attorney would see the presentation as the court would see it and have the
> opportunity to approve same before officially filing their document?
>
> It was noted that there are fewer concerns with printer fidelity with
> PDF files.
>
> 5) whether it would still be appropriate to continue having Court Filing
> and Court Document as separate entities.
>
> 6) It was also noted that the Court Document standard may be very suitable
> for the transmission of information that would be considered "form-based."
>
> The Court Document standard will be on the agenda for the face-to-face
> meeting in Washington D. C. in July.
>
> 7. Upcoming meetings
>
> Upcoming conference calls include
>
> Tuesday May 6th, June 3rd, August 5th, September 9th, October 7th.
>
> The next face-to-face will be on Friday and Saturday, July 18th and 19th
> in Washington DC, pending confirmation with the hosts.
>
> The face-to-face will be in Las Vegas for December 11th and December 12th,
> pending scheduling with the hosts.
>
> There will also be two one-hour conference calls for each of the upcoming
> face-to-face meetings.