[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-doc] Breaking Court Document out of Court Filing
Hello, ECFTC!
I want to share 1. A link to an article of interest, 2. a comment on
"display" of XML documents ("instances"), and 3. comments on proposal(s) for
a new technical committee (for "Court Document" or for "Legal Document").
1. The May 15 issue of "Law.Com" included an article that relates to
our work: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440723645
<http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440723645> .
2. I acknowledge that a strong expression of the importance of a stable
appearance for a legal document, particularly a court filing, has been made
in several ways, including the Process Standards. There have, however, been
discussions about alternate ways to reference information in documents (the
real reason for pagination) in order to enable the fullest use of electronic
document technology. One such alternative is the "paragraph numbering" idea
where, based on some to-be-determined convention, the paragraphs (or
paragraph units) in a document would be sequentially numbered so they could
be referenced accurately even though different people might find them on
different pages due to variances in their browsers, word processors, etc.
One notion supporting this approach is that computers are very good at
numbering things: it would seem that identifying numbers could easily be
fixed to paragraphs within a given document. By definition, a change in the
document that might affect its paragraph numbers would be a new version of
the document. I hope such alternatives stay in view - holding on to "page"
and "format" seems to me to be a form of holding on to paper! When
considering paragraph numbering, please don't just imagine differences
caused by using stylesheets that show up differently in one browser or
another: Suppose a visually impaired person were to display a document in a
very large font in order to read it -- the difference in apparent pagination
would be extreme. (If this paragraph numbering practice were adopted, I
predict a movement in style toward writing shorter paragraphs in legal
documents would ensue.)
3. OASIS's allowing three members to initiate a technical committee
opens the door to good and not-so-good results. To the good, it doesn't
require that a large number be convinced in order to present a charter and
propose work to be done. On the other hand, it makes it appear easier to
form a new group than to confront difficulties, however severe or slight, in
an existing technical committee where the work might well be most
appropriately placed. I am aligned with those who believe that Court
Document and Court Filing are so strongly related that it would be a mistake
to develop them in separated efforts. I believe our TC as a whole needs to
take ownership of Court Document and develop it alongside (or within) Court
Filing - Blue. The TC has not had discussion along those lines yet because
its current focus is in building the foundation for "Blue" through
developing interoperability and process issues and models.
While I might be persuaded, after extensive discussion and exploration of
alternatives, that a parallel effort focused on "Legal Document"
specifications might make sense, my starting position is that the
fundamental standards that should be part of all of Legal XML's
specifications need to be agreed upon first. The technical architecture for
transmittal, security, validation, etc., should, I'd think, be essentially
the same for all legal documents as they are for court filings in
particular. There should, I think, be a common vocabulary that reflects a
belief that "things legal" refer to the same people, things, attributes, and
relationships, whether they are in the context of a court, a contract
negotiation, a labor agreement, a statute, a marriage license, or other. I
have never been convinced that "translation tools" will "take care of" the
differences that come from having separate and uncoordinated work products
generated by a "Balkanized" approach to standards development.
Best wishes,
Roger
Roger Winters
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: John Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 7:13 AM
To: 'Krause, Catherine'; courtfiling-doc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-doc] Breaking Court Document out of Court Filing
The discussion in Atlanta focused on several matters
- One, should Court Document be incorporated into Court Filing Blue?
Those who expressed views thought not. The two specifications should remain
separate, although they would both evolve in the same general directions for
the Blue generation of TC specifications.
- Two, what changes need to be made to Court Document as the
subcommittee develops a schema-based specification? Among the issues
discussed was a revisiting of a basic issue that the TC had grappled with in
the past - how can we guarantee to lawyers and to courts that XML documents
will retain their content and formatting when displayed on different
browsers and applications within law offices and courts? Our previous
discussions all concluded that use of the same style sheet would obtain this
result. All we needed to do was have the lawyer include the style sheet
with the XML instance, and "sign" both, and we could guarantee the integrity
of the content within the document and the format in which it appeared. The
discussion in Atlanta reached the opposite factual conclusion - at the
current level of development of XML, we cannot be assured of the integrity
of the content or the format when documents are displayed using different
browsers and different applications. TC members in Atlanta stated, without
contradiction, that if a document created with Court Document 1.1 is
displayed with a different browser than the one used to create it, it may
show different content and different formatting. The likelihood of those
changes is not predictable. It is also impossible to require all
participants to use the same browser and application to avoid this result.
It was also pointed out that the same is true to a far lesser extent for pdf
- specifically -- that special characters can display differently in a pdf
than in the document from which it was created, such as a special symbol
used as a bullet displaying as a character instead. Pdf, however, has
proved to be sufficiently representative to have earned the confidence of
lawyers and courts. This discussion suggested to some of those present that
Court Document 1.1, and any future Court Document specifications, will - at
the current state of XML technology - be useful primarily for form-based
documents (in which only the data is of great consequence) and not for "free
text" documents. We all agreed that we need to do more testing of Court
Document in different configurations to determine how reliable it will be in
practice.
- There was no intimation that the full Technical Committee was
uninterested in or unwilling to continue to work on these issues with the
Court Document subcommittee in the future. In fact, this was one of the
very best and most thorough explorations of the issues associated with Court
Document that I have observed in the long history of the TC. Dallas Powell,
Shane Durham and Dr. Leff made extremely valuable contributions to the
discussion of the issues that Rolly raised on behalf of the subcommittee.
The discussion of a separate TC for court document took place on the
conference call following the Atlanta meeting, not at the Atlanta meeting.
It was initiated by Diane Lewis, arising from her analysis of the charters
of all of the Legal XML Member Section Technical Committees for the Member
Section Steering Committee.
I disagree with Jim Keane's suggestion that persons interested in a separate
Legal Documents Technical Committee should make a proposal to OASIS to
create one. Given the importance of this issue to the Legal XML Member
Section, I believe that the matter should be studied by our new Steering
Committee and that all members of the Member Section should abide that the
Steering Committee's decision of the issue. The discussion has raised a
number of valid points pro and con and we should rely on the governance
mechanism we have created to resolve them.
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC
HCR 78, Box 23
Regina, New Mexico 87046
505-289-2164
505-780-1450 (cell)
-----Original Message-----
From: Krause, Catherine [mailto:Catherine.Krause@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:46 AM
To: courtfiling-doc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-doc] Breaking Court Document out of Court Filing
John:
Your idea sounds reasonable.
I also was not in Atlanta, and now re-reading the minutes (which I had
skimmed previously), I understand more about why this topic came up -- I
apologize for not doing so earlier. The minutes seem to indicate that there
was a discussion about whether the Court Document standard should be merged
into the Court Filing standard, rather than have two separate standards, and
that the topic was to be discussed further at the next face-to-face in July.
The minutes do not mention the discussion about Court Document separating
from Court Filing and going "on their own" as you describe below.
It might be helpful for those of us who were not in Atlanta if someone who
was in Atlanta could clarify, or at least confirm that John's summary below
was also part of the conversation.
Thanks,
Catherine Krause
E-Filing Project Manager
King County Department of Judicial Administration
(206)296-7860
catherine.krause@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: jmessing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com
<mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com> ]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:13 AM
To: courtfiling-doc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [courtfiling-doc] Breaking Court Document out of Court Filing
I understand and appreciate the concern about retaining control within the
CourtFiling TC over the standards that relate strictly to court documents.
However, there may be two levels here.
First, presenting a legal document in a format and manner that retains the
"look and feel" of paper.
As I understand the discussions at Atlanta, most participants felt that PDF
did a better job than XML at this stage of performing this first task and
that continued efforts towards a CourtDocument schema within the CourtFiling
TC were going to be deprecated in favor of using PDF. The consensus as
explained to me was that the participants in a CourtDocument standard could
proceed as a subcommittee on their own, but without support from the
CourtFiling TC itself. As I was not present, please correct me if I have
mispoken.
But I digress.
At a second level, there is a need to support the "hooks" for applications
to make use of the data in the XML documents. These are fairly rudimentary
and poorly understood at this stage in the evolution of CourtDocument, IMO.
We are learning from the eContracts TC some of the latter techniques, as
like CourtDocument, eContracts require a familiar "look and feel" as well as
application "hooks." They are different than those for CourtDocument, but
related.
This leads me to the conclusion that what is needed is a LegalDocument TC,
where the similarities and differences between the various "flavors" of
documents can be normalized, using techniques of a "core" schema,
inheritance of the "core" elements and attributes, extensions to the various
domains: CourtDocument, eContracts, etc. as well as the types of hooks that
are needed for specific applications in the various domains. I would add to
this a universal citation standard, which the ABA has requested and
authorized, and which does not strictly speaking fall within CourtFiling.
I would therefore like to see CourtDocument itself remain where it is,
within the CourtFiling TC, and a new LegalDocument TC created, where the
development of these techniques across the board (our original "horizontal"
concept from the early days of LegalXML) can be developed. Then with a
liasion from CourtFiling, the learning of this new TC, as appropriate, can
be ported to CourtDocument, under the control of CourtFiling.
I would be interested in hearing from others about this idea.
=====================================================
All:
If a proposal is made to revise the Court Filing TC charter to separate
Court Document out and make it a separate TC, I suggest that rather than
Court Filing TC members justifying the current charter where Court Document
is part of it, the opposite needs to occur -- those proposing to separate
Court Document from Court Filing need to make the case for doing so.
I do agree with Diane's statement that "close identification" between the
groups has not been observed. However, I view this as an issue to be
addressed within the TC, not a reason to separate Court Document from Court
Filing. From my point of view as to what is needed for our electronic
filing project (which I believe will also be needed for others), we need
both a Court Filing standard and a Court Document standard, or possibly one
standard that covers both. The Court Document standard needs to include all
the data tags that we need in order to process e-filed documents; in other
words, it needs to include tags for all of the data that our staff currently
keys into various CMS/DMS systems -- this is at a more detailed level than
those included in the ECF 1.1 standard, which might be enough to get a
document into the case file, but does not include tags for all of the
additional data that we enter in various systems for various document types.
Until that level of detailed data tags are included, we will not be able to
reach the ultimate goal of fully automating the processing of electronically
filed documents, at least not in a large court of general jurisdiction like
ours where we have multiple systems where data is entered today, and new
ones being developed all the time. It will take time to identify all of the
needed tags, but I think we can get there. The current Court Document
standard is a good starting point that can be built upon for specific
document types.
My view of the purpose of the Court Document standard is that it is to tag
the data used by the clerk and/or court, the data that is of use to
practitioners for their own purposes, as well as for other purposes such as
electronic service, etc. I do not feel that those members of the TC
interested in Court Document should need to participate in a separate TC to
ensure that the Court Document standard meets our needs; the additional time
to attend meetings of multiple TCs is something that would be very difficult
for many of us to do. At this point, I strongly oppose separating Court
Document out of the Court Filing TC. My primary concern is that there would
be even less identification with the Court Filing TC as a whole than there
has been in the past. Unless someone makes a strong case for doing so, I
would be voting that I cannot live with a proposal to separate Court
Document from Court Filing.
Thanks,
Catherine Krause
E-Filing Project Manager
King County Department of Judicial Administration
(206)296-7860
catherine.krause@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov [mailto:Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov
<mailto:Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov> ]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:53 AM
To: 'courtfiling-doc@lists.oasis-open.org'; 'Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV'
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-doc] Breaking Court Document out of Court Filing
thanks Roger for quick response,
i would suggest that the Court Filing stakeholders who have an interest in
XML court document standard consider joining a separate Court Document TC
....
i have not seen demonstrated at the Court Filing meetings the "close
identification" between the two at the meetings i have attended..... the
last set of meeting notes to my mind indicate the opposite... that the court
filing envelope /transmission capability takes any BLOB... not exclusively a
document that authored/created based on XML technologies/standards.
i would welcome a list of reasons from you and/or other ECF stakeholders as
to why the document/filing components should remain in tandum....
diane
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV
<mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV> ]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 11:40 AM
To: courtfiling-doc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-doc] Breaking Court Document out of Court Filing
Importance: Low
Diane,
I will, of course, represent the ECF TC to the Steering Committee by
conveying its requests, recommendations, etc., there. There are, by the way,
specific OASIS procedures relating to the formation of Technical Committees,
etc. Whatever decisions are reached would be implemented within those
procedures.
Now, writing as an individual member of the ECF TC, I think this is the
first time I've heard a proposal to move the Court Document committee toward
being its own TC. I would think that Court Document needs to become more
closely identified with Court Filing, where many of its stakeholders are
involved.
Roger Winters
Electronic Court Records Manager
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, Washington 98104
V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov [mailto:Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov
<mailto:Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov> ]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 8:08 AM
To: courtfiling-doc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [courtfiling-doc] Breaking Court Document out of Court Filing
Roger,
i am addressing this message through the court document filing SC...instead
of directly to you.... so others can provide their thoughts.
I would like to request that you along with elected members to the LegalXML
member Section board... consider a realignment of Court Document ... instead
of being designated as a subcommittee under Court Filing. I propose that
the community consider it a separate TC.... the charter for the
subcommittee can be rewritten to justify the need to place a definite
boundary between court filing and court document.
i look forward to learning your detailed views on this proposal as well as
learning the views of other court document SC members.
thanks for considering this idea.... diane
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]