[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Alternative drafting options for the "compliance" concept that we discussed in Atlanta
Another possible option could be in essence your no. 1 with a notification of work and intended work to the TC. This would be in essence a statement facilitating cooperation with the TC in the development of standards, without going much further. My concern is the practicality of doing much more and the time that options 2 and 3 might take away from the developments efforts themselves. 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; 2) the application provider has on file with the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee a statement of work describing what is being done and its contributions and intended contributions to the work of the TC. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "John Greacen" <john@greacen.net> Date: Sun, 4 May 2003 21:22:10 -0600 >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) > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]