Agenda for Tuesday conference call and subcommittee report

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

Here are the details for Tuesday’s conference call.  I hope that all voting members are able to participate.

 

Leader's Name: John Greacen

        Day/Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2005

        Time of call: 1:00 to 2:00 pm Eastern time

        Conference Dial-in: 512-225-3050

        Conference Guest Code: 84759#

        Number of lines needed: Anticipated Total = 40

        Duration of the call: 1 Hour

        Leader's Phone Number: 505-780-1450

 

I attach the report of the subcommittee of Tom Clarke, Shane Durham, Eric Tingom and me that reviewed the comments submitted on the requirements document.  The report includes new introductory material for the requirements document.  It identifies specific items for further discussion by the TC during this conference call.  And it gives a specific response to each comment submitted.

 

The agenda for the conference call will include the following items and any additional items raised by persons who submitted comments who are not satisfied with the subcommittee’s response.

 

Agenda

 

1. New introductory materials for the requirements document
2. 200 -- Bergeron –Consider changing “cannot” to “cannot and shall not.”

 

      Subcommittee comment – Don’s suggested change would prohibit the attachment of an XML instance as a document in the payload.  We do not believe that is the TC’s desire.  We merely want to make clear that Court Filing Blue will not support accessing tagged material contained in an XML instance in the payload.

 

3. 1219 –  4 .4 .4 through 4.4.6 -- Bergeron –  Define the behavior when a document within a case is sealed and may be hidden from the docket itself, visible to the docket but unnamed and unretrievable, visible in the docket named the and unretrievable.

 

Subcommittee comment – Most courts merely remove sealed or inaccessible information from a response without providing any notification or explanation to the requester.  Providing notice of the exclusion of information may disclose its existence, in contravention of the sealing or exclusion policy.  The subcommittee recommends only that the court set forth in its court policies a disclosure of its general practice to exclude sealed and inaccessible information from the information returned in response to a query.

 

4. 1316:  McElrath – Why not make this an extension of get case?  Is this where a filer can query for a standardized form for the court?  If so, then this is useful.  If not, then it seems more appropriate as an extension to "Get Case" as a query for a document related to a specific case.

 

      Subcommittee comment – The “Get Document” query was approved in Salt Lake City.  We believe it is necessary.

 

5. 1392-1398:  McElrath – Should be two scenarios.  1) Calculate fees based on document type or declared characteristics  and 2) Calculate fees based on document specifics from processing of document.  For scenario 1, courts would use very little bandwidth and processing power, and this query would give back fees quite quickly and simply with small efficient messaging.  For scenario 2), courts can run through any type of processing that they want for the full document to determine fees, but since courts have the choice of 2 scenarios, the documents do not always have to be transmitted twice which would help out courts with low bandwidth connections and conserve processing efficiency for high volume courts and high volume filers.

 

Subcommittee comment – We believe that this is resolved by allowing the filer to opt out of the calculate fees query, but we believe the TC should decide.

 

6. 1769-1788:  Cabral – The directory should include the necessary metadata and interfaces to allow MDEs to search for one another.
7. 1769-1788: McElrath – This needs to be deleted.  This is nice if we are specifying software, but we should not be in that realm at all.  Our job should be to specify standards for data transmission and communication, not to architect out specific software modules.  We are deep inside the black boxes again and need to pull out of that area.  For the specification to be successful and to not validate any specific way of doing things inside a particular software, the black boxes should be left alone.

 

      Subcommittee comment – It is clear that MDEs need to know each other’s addresses.  But whether that requires a formal process and, if so, what that process should be, needs to be resolved by the TC.

 

 

John M. Greacen

Greacen Associates, LLC

HCR 78, Box 23

Regina, New Mexico 87046

505-289-2164

505-289-2163 (fax)

505-780-1450 (cell)

 

Report of comments subcommittee4-16-05.doc