RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call

["Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG-DAY)" <Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com>]

I withdraw my comments at 150 and 159 in favor of the clarifications of the Shane requested.

 

Suggestion only -- In the future, you may want to consider adding a column for cardinality within message type definitions.  This timing is often more clear and advantageous than defining and reviewing at the time of schema creation.

 

Otherwise, I concur with the other comments and recommended actions by the subcommittee.  Well done!

 

 

Regards,

Don

Donald L. Bergeron
Systems Designer
LexisNexis
donald.bergeron@lexisnexis.com
O 937-865-1276
H 937-748-2775
M 937-672-7781

---

From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 1:39 AM
To: Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call

 

We will hold an hour and a half teleconference from 1:00 pm to 2:30 pm on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 to discuss the Court Filing Blue message types. 

 

Remember that we are using the LexisNexis Meeting Place application to support this meeting.  Please log onto that site, following Don’s instructions, and dial into the conference call as well. 

 

If we have additional time, we will address the architecture of the Court Filing Blue message envelope structure (see minutes of May 17^th conference call).  I do not believe the either the DSS Entity Seal nor the extendability of the Court Filing Blue schema(s) is ripe for discussionA detailed agenda will be distributed prior to the meeting. 

 

The details for next Tuesday’s call are set forth below.

 

        Leader's Name: John Greacen

        Day/Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2005

        Time of call: 1:00 to 2:30 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

 

Please review the attached document from the subcommittee to review the comments on the Court Filing Blue Message Types.  Be prepared; it is a long document – roughly 25 pages when printed.  Please find time if possible to review it before the teleconference.  The subcommittee report recommends TC action on each comment, including the items listed below for discussion by the full TC.  Any member may ask that any of the subcommittee’s recommendations be set for discussion by the full TC on this or a future teleconference.

 

Proposed agenda

 

1. Suggested resolution of the issues concerning Court Filing Blue, UBL and GJXDM semantics.  We have discovered what others have found in trying to use the GJXDM as written: the element definitions are poorly and often incorrectly worded from a legal standpoint.  GTRI has stated that if any user changes any of the definitions, they should define a new element in their own namespace.  The only entity with the authority to change an element definition is the XSTF.  We cannot wait for the XSTF to change the definitions of all the elements we find inartfully worded for our purposes.  The subcommittee suggests that we create our own definitions applicable in our domain for GJXDM elements when the semantic content of the element remains the same as in the GJXDM, while submitting our proposed redefinitions for approval by the XSTF.  A couple of examples suffice – Case Initiating Party Person, Case Initiating Party Organization, and Case Initiating Party Property are all defined exactly the same.  The definition of Case Initiating Party Person states that the initiator of a criminal case is the victim; in a court it is almost always the State.  We can correct the definitional problems for applying these elements in our context – with complete confidence that we are using the elements as intended by the GJXDM.  Scott Came points out that some members of the XSTF will consider our specification non-compliant with the GJXDM if we follow this course.

 

2. Proposed domain specialist UML working session to develop a strawman schema(s) – Tom Clarke and I recommend that we convene a small group of domain experts together with two GJXDM-knowledgeable technical experts to go through the process followed by the Integrated Justice Technical Committee for developing GJXDM reference documents.  We have asked Terrie Bousquin, Robin Gibson, Roger Winters and me to meet with Scott Came and Jim Cabral in Seattle for two days on June 2 and 3 to prepare a document for review by the TC face to face meeting in Atlanta on June 6 to 8.  I have sought LegalXML Member Section funding to support the travel costs for the three team members not from Seattle.  I will ask the TC to ratify this process.

 

Specific Issues concerning the Message Types

 

3. How do we handle “interested persons” -- non-parties who become related to a case?  Do we need to define a new party type (or the full range of Person, Organization, and Property types) to refer to these “non-party parties?”  See Greacen comment to line 130.

 

4. Whether Court Filing Blue will support the transmission of information on changes to parties and attorneys in XML or require that these by handled traditionally, such as by motions for withdrawal or substitution of counsel.  See Durham comment to line 132.

 

5. Can queries be addressed to MDEs as well as to courts?  See Durham comment to line 168.

 

6. Why include a Policy Reference URI in response messages?  Do we need a separate Get Policy Query?  See Durham comment to line 175.

 

7. We need to clarify the distinction between Get Filing Status and Get Filing.  What is returned in the response to each?  Is the filing status returned in Get Filing?  If so, why have a Get Filing Status query?  Are the documents and attachments returned in Get Filing?  If not, why isn’t Get Filing Status sufficient by itself?  See comments to lines 181 through 196.

 

8. What is returned in the response to a Get Filing List query?  See Durham comment to line 192 and 201.

 

9. In New Orleans we agreed that the Get Case query should support limitations of the data to be returned from the court’s docket or register of actions.  Shane Durham asks whether an xpath statement is a reasonable way to do that and suggests instead that we define a standard set of limited queries, including selection criteria for getting cases, getting participants in cases and getting docket or register of action information.  Can we accomplish this within the time available for releasing Court Filing Blue?  See Durham comments to line 209.

 

10. What is returned in the response to the Get Case List query?  See Durham comments to line 221.

 

11. In eService, how do we handle the distinction between service on attorneys for parties and service on the parties themselves if they do not have attorneys?  See second Greacen comment to line 248.

 

12. Do we need to specify additional messages for

 

1. Transmitting service information, including the documents to be served, to the Service MDE and
2. Transmitting information from the Service MDE to the court to indicate that service has been completed?

 

See last Greacen comment to line 248

 

13. The architecture of the Court Filing Blue message envelope structure (see minutes of May 17^th conference call) – Scott Came and Eric Tingom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

john@greacen.net