-----Original Message-----
From:
Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov [mailto:Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Wed
1/7/2004 11:56 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc:
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Apologies and
follow-up to Jan 6th 2004 conference call
TC Chair and Members,
Sorry i had to ring-off early
from yesterday's (1/6) conference call. I was called away from my
desk.
I realize it was unfortunate i missed the remaining detailed
discussion of the Court Filing Blue definition. I look forward to
reading the conference call minutes to learn the final "Blue"
definition.
There are several thoughts i wish to share with TC members
as we move forward in 2004 Court Filing discussions and
initiatives.
<You will note that through these expressed
thoughts i continue my thread of discussion from 2003 as to how the TC will
finally resolve the question of maintaining a Court Filing sub-committee
called Court Document given the focus of the committee's work to date is
on basic court filing methods to accommodate any "payload".>
Thought
#1:
On December 7th the TC received a public comment from
vijay@adviceAmerica.com: "Would the committee be coming out with an XML Schema
as against a DTD which is presently under review (as I understand)?
"
* There needs to be clarification
between Court Document (court filings types) and the messaging schemas
associated with EFM.
Suggest: separate initiative either as part
of the Court Filing TC or through a proposal to the LegalXML section to create
a separate TC for Electronic Preparation Provider spec
development??
i realize this suggestion does introduce administrative
decisions with regard to other legal document initiatives (e.g. contracts) and
rises the topic of interoperability.
Re: The EFP= front end application
that prepares and submits filings . The EFP is the application on the
filer's side of the e-filing architecture also called the client.
Is there a LegalXML recommendation, model for authoring the "payload" of all
court filing types? where does this scope of work intersect with Blue
vision?
The Transcript TC states: The purpose of this TC is to
develop an XML compliant syntax for representing legal transcript documents
either as stand-alone structured content, or as part of other legal
records.
Shouldn't an "off-spring" of Blue be a TC or a Sub TC under
Court Filing that constructs an XML compliant syntax for representing court
filing documents authored by Court customers (e.g. attorneys)? Is
there a need from such a specification?
Decision for TC members to
entertain: Is this type of standard/specification development of value
to the legal/justice community? If so, where does it belong:
OASIS Legal XML or OASIS e-government, or a different effort similar which
could be defined along the lines of the Education TC purpose statement
?
The purpose of the OASIS Education XML TC is to represent international
pre-Kindergarten through 12th grade (PK12) interests by developing XML
requirements documentation for shared extensible user profiles, controlled
vocabularies, taxonomies, and thesauri, and other needed
specifications.
To me, these questions seem to be more appropriate for
the LegalXML Steering Committe to decide rather than for the TC.
Unfortunately, the Steering Committee has not provided sufficient direction to
date in clarifying the relationships between the TCs in the Member
Section. It is something that I, and I believe other Steering Committee
members are hoping to resolve once the committee is fully constituted,
hopefully by the end of this month.
Thought#2 The Open Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) Court
interface is defining its architecture data classes for an Electronic Filing
Manager: Filing; Confirmation; Query; Response;
Policy.
Is the OXCI 2004 initiative considered by theTC members to be a
Blue implementation? In reverse the OXCI documentation points to Blue
compliance... Can someone please clarify for me the intended action plan for
Blue development and how that supports OXCI or how OXCI development supports
Blue specification creation?
As i understand it: OXCI is a
state court initiative and Blue is a set of standards to be applicable
to any court setting..??
In the OXCI Architecture, we clearly state that
OXCI is an implementation which is contributing to the development of Court
Filing Blue and is targets eventual compliance with Court Filing Blue once it
reaches the Committee Specification stage. Although OXCI is sponsored by
state courts, the architecture should be applicable and scalable to any court
setting, However, much of the actual internal architectural and
deployment details are beyond the scope of the Court Filing
specifications.
Thought#3: Blue's vision is a set of specs that enables
exchanges of court filings and related court filing information among courts,
their partners and customers.
Is the Blue vision considering
exchanges of court filings/notice in any court setting (e.g. federal,state)
meaning a wide spectrum of specifications within a defined core set or is Blue
2004 to be a set of specs based on one "model" of court information data
exchange?
Does the Blue vision of filing court case documents include
an interoperability component to interface with Electronic Filing Providers
(open source based or proprietary based technology)?
We have talked several times in the past about
the need for compliance standards and a certification process. However,
I can't remember having this discussion recently in the context of Court
Filing Blue beyond the three levels of interoperablity we defined in the
"Definition of Court Filing Blue" working draft.
Thought#4 Performance/Testing...
i think we had developed
documentation that maps requirements from a TC perspective... perhaps this
topic can be revisited as an agenda item during one of the 2004 meetings.. in
association with Blue development. recent resources on the XML
performance topic through the e-Gov TC thread have come to my attention and
might be helpful when considering Blue development.
I am very interested in seeing whatever resources you have found that
can help us in this area.
I appreciate TC members taking time out to send me responses to one or
more of my inquiries or pointing me to existing TC documentation that
addresses my inquiry.
Look forward to continued productive, conclusive
discussions as Court Filing TC initiatives move forward in 2004.
thanks
for allowing me to participate in this TC over these past years...
diane