Alternative drafting options for the "compliance" concept that we discussed in Atlanta

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

I have come up with the following options for consideration by the TC during the conference call on Tuesday.  The first option follows the course that the TC took in Atlanta.  The second follows Dallas Powell’s initial response to the Atlanta minutes.  The third follows the discussion between Dallas and Shane about Dallas’ comment. I look forward to our discussion on Tuesday.

 

I propose that, whatever the outcome of this discussion, implementation of the resulting policy become the responsibility of our Certification Subcommittee chaired by Tom Clarke.

 

Option 1 – notification of the TC of modifications and extensions

 

Policy Statement

 

The specifications developed by this Technical Committee, and approved as proposed standards by the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee have not yet been approved as “recommended standards” because they are still undergoing interoperability testing.  The Technical Committee has been asked how application providers should respond to questions posed by courts procuring electronic filing solutions whether their applications “comply with” Legal XML standards.  Because the specifications are still in testing, the Technical Committee authorizes application providers to answer such questions in the affirmative if:

 

1)       the application in question uses XML and a DTD that substantially follows Court Filing 1.O, 1.1, Court Document 1.1, or Query & Response or a Schema derived from one of those DTDs; and

2)       the application provider has on file with the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee a document disclosing all modifications and extensions to the TC’s proposed specification, together with a narrative statement of the reasons for making those modifications and extensions.

 

The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Technical Committee will publish all such documents with the proposed specifications on its website for the benefit of other users of the specification and for the purpose of developing future versions of these specifications.

 

Option 2 – notification of the TC and approval by the TC of modifications and extensions

 

Policy Statement

 

The specifications developed by this Technical Committee, and approved as proposed standards by the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee have not yet been approved as “recommended standards” because they are still undergoing interoperability testing.  The Technical Committee has been asked how application providers should respond to questions posed by courts procuring electronic filing solutions whether their applications “comply with” Legal XML standards.  Because the specifications are still in testing, the Technical Committee authorizes application providers to answer such questions in the affirmative if:

 

1)       the application in question uses XML and a DTD that substantially follows Court Filing 1.O, 1.1, Court Document 1.1, or Query & Response or a Schema derived from one of those DTDs; and

2)       the application provider has on file with the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee a document disclosing all modifications and extensions to the TC’s proposed specification, together with a narrative statement of the reasons for making those modifications and extensions; and

3)       the Technical Committee has informed the application provider that its modifications and extensions are not inconsistent with the intention of the proposed specification.

 

The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Technical Committee will publish all such documents, and the TC’s response to them, with the proposed specifications on its website for the benefit of other users of the specification and for the purpose of developing future versions of these specifications.

 

Option 3 – notification of the TC and “discussion” with the TC

 

Policy Statement

 

The specifications developed by this Technical Committee, and approved as proposed standards by the COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee have not yet been approved as “recommended standards” because they are still undergoing interoperability testing.  The Technical Committee has been asked how application providers should respond to questions posed by courts procuring electronic filing solutions whether their applications “comply with” Legal XML standards.  Because the specifications are still in testing, the Technical Committee authorizes application providers to answer such questions in the affirmative if:

 

1)       the application in question uses XML and a DTD that substantially follows Court Filing 1.O, 1.1, Court Document 1.1, or Query & Response or a Schema derived from one of those DTDs; and

2)       the application provider has on file with the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee a document disclosing all modifications and extensions to the TC’s proposed specification, together with a narrative statement of the reasons for making those modifications and extensions; and

3)       the application provider satisfactorily answers all questions posed by the Technical Committee [or any of its members] about its implementation of the proposed specification.

 

The OASIS Legal XML Member Section Technical Committee will publish all such documents, together with questions posed by the Technical Committee [and its members], answers from the application provider, and the TC chair’s statement that the answer(s) are satisfactory to the Technical Committee, with the proposed specifications on its website for the benefit of other users of the specification and for the purpose of developing future versions of these specifications.

 

I welcome additional options for the TC’s consideration on Tuesday.

 

 

 

John M. Greacen

Greacen Associates, LLC

HCR 78, Box 23

Regina, New Mexico 87046

505-289-2164

505-780-1450 (cell)