RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Definitional changes

["Carlson, Tom" <tcarlson@ncsc.dni.us>]

Title: Message

In general:

 

1) The XSTF recognizes that many of the definitions need work. In the past, they've explicitly asked for assistance with improving definitions.

2) Definitional changes that don't break existing uses of elements and types are the easiest and most welcome of changes for the XSTF.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Came [mailto:scott@justiceintegration.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 11:37 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Refined agenda for Tuesday conference call

John and TC, a quick clarification...

My position with respect to changing GJXDM element and type definitions is that an argument **could be** made that such an approach leads to non-conformant schemas.  I don't know specifically whether any XSTF members **will** make such an argument.

Further, I think that altering GJXDM definitions raises a much more serious conformance question than the prohibition of further extensions of the Blue message schemas.  If the TC is concerned about the latter, it should probably be more concerned about the former.

I believe the range of definitional changes that you can make to a type or element without changing the semantics is fairly small.  It is certainly possible to change definitions in a way that maintains consistency with the intent of the original definitions, especially if we have the participation of people who were involved in the writing of the originals.  However, I think we should recognize that this is a slippery slope:  does the practice of changing GJXDM definitions to suit the needs of a particular exchange or schema design scale?  Would we advocate that anyone designing a GJXDM schema change the definitions in a way consistent with their interpretation of the intent of the element?  I think in general an argument could be made that this hinders interoperability.

I am not opposed to the practical approach of:  (a) changing the definitions as John suggests below, (b) documenting very clearly where we have done so, and (c) submitting our altered definitions to XSTF for consideration in a future version of GJXDM.  We can move forward assuming that XSTF will accept our altered definitions, given the level of court semantic expertise on this TC.  In the worst case, if any of the definitional changes are rejected at XSTF, we can fallback on an approach of defining Blue-specific elements in our extension schemas later.

Thanks.
--Scott

> 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 17th 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
>
> a. Transmitting service information, including the documents to be
> served, to the Service MDE and
> b. 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 17th 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php