RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Apologies and follow-up to Jan 6th 2004 conference call

[Tom.Clarke@courts.wa.gov]

Diane,

Just a few more quick thoughts in response to a couple of your questions:

#2 - To reiterate what Jim Cabral already said, OXCI cannot conform to Blue
because it doesn't exist yet.  Like the work of several vendors and 2GEFS,
the architecture and schemas of OXCI can provide some of the raw materials
that the TC may or may not choose to reuse when creating Blue.  OXCI has the
stated intent to fully comply with Blue when it does exist, even though that
compliance will require refactoring at additional expense.

#3 - As the chair of the Certification Subcommittee, I certainly have not
forgotten our original intent in this area.  As my architect often says, a
standard is not open unless an open implementation of it exists.  I am
hoping that by complying with Blue when it is done, OXCI could serve as this
open implementation.  It could also serve as the basis for a compliance test
suite if a consortium of vendors chose to construct such a suite.  This
approach still follows the Java/Sun example, where Sun offers an open
implementation and a test suite, but vendors have nevertheless created a
lively market in commercial solutions (application servers like BEA and
WebSphere).

-----Original Message-----
From: Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov [mailto:Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 11:57 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
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.

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..??

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)?

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 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