Requirements for "compliance with" TC specifications

["John Greacen" <john@greacen.net>]

In the message reproduced below, Dallas raises an important issue.  We
should discuss it during the conference call next week.  I invite other
comments in the meantime.  

In Atlanta, we all agreed that implementers of our specifications must
report any changes or extensions they made in order to be considered as
being in "compliance with" the specification.  Dallas is saying that
something more is needed beyond a report of the changes or extensions;
the TC must review each implementation and state whether the
implementation is within the "spirit" of the specification.  This is an
important difference.

Tom Clarke -- While this is not certification per se, I believe that the
TC would like to hear the views of your subcommittee on this issue at or
before the conference call next Tuesday.

John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC
HCR 78, Box 23
Regina, New Mexico 87046
505-289-2164
505-780-1450 (cell)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 9:39 AM
> To: Dr. Laurence Leff; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Official Transmission of Minutes
from
> the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Court Filing Technical Committee
> Secretary
> 
> 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.