I agree with John! Although this is a
difficult problem, this has been on the table since before Court filing blue.
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 31, 2005 2:47
PM
To: 'Clarke, Thomas';
scott@justiceintegration.com; 'Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee'
Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements
Tom and Scott – This is all news to
me. I have been under the impression, from the earliest days of the TC, that
our XML specifications have to include the information needed by courts to
initiate new cases, in all case types. That is information that needs to come
in XML so that it is available directly to the court (or the Filing Review MDE)
for creation of the case opening information for filing of complaints,
petitions, informations, and indictments that create new cases. If the data is
not there, the court cannot file these documents. Going down into another
layer of the message structure to find this information – where according
to Scott it would not necessarily be in XML at all – seems to me to
create problems for implementers.
I read the Court Filing Blue requirements
document to be consistent with my prior understanding that this information is
included within the Blue specification and schema. I guess this shows that
there are problems with the requirements documents if we three can read it and
come to such different expectations about this important part of the efiling
process. When we discussed the issue in New
Orleans – when I took on responsibility for
collecting this information – no one suggested that it was out of scope
for Blue. When I collected the data from multiple sources, several of whom are
TC members (including Dallas, Robin, Roger, and Jim Harris), no one suggested
that it was outside the scope of Blue.
I am open to discussion of this issue, and
am willing to consider alternative approaches. But the matter requires
discussion on the list.
Dallas, Shane, Don, Jim Beard, Shogan
Naidoo, Robert DePhillips and other implementers – do we need to include
this information in Court Filing Blue or can we create a structure that posits
its appearance in some part of the Court Filing Blue message that is not
defined in Blue?
I will make sure that this issue is on the
Atlanta face to
face agenda. But I would appreciate some discussion on the list prior to the
meeting.
From: Clarke, Thomas
[mailto:tclarke@ncsc.dni.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:19
AM
To: scott@justiceintegration.com; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements
I was under the same impression as Scott.
Typically, the minimum case initiation and document indexing elements are
restricted to somewhere around 10 to 15 data elements. The rest go into
the appropriate IEP. At least that is the strategy assumed by Global and
the GJXDM folks.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Came
[mailto:scott@justiceintegration.com]
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 4:43 PM
To: Electronic
Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: Re:
[legalxml-courtfiling] Case Initiation Elements
Thanks John.
This is certainly a substantial list of data elements. I've also noticed
that there is some overlap with the criminal complaint reference IEP work
previously undertaken by the law enforcement reference IEP projects earlier
this year (based on work done earlier in LA County), and also the NCSC traffic
citation reference IEP.
I had thought our approach was to include such instances of other reference
IEPs as one of the documents in the Blue message structure, with only
"basic" case information in the main body of the Blue message. For
instance, it would certainly be straightforward for law enforcement to file a
traffic citation case by including in the main Blue message body the basic
information (parties names, court info, case title, case type, etc.) Then
the document (what we used to call the lead document) would contain the full
citation information. If this were XML, we would hope it would be
something close to (or derived from) the citation reference IEP, but ultimately
it would be whatever is standard in that jurisdiction. But it would not
have to be XML. Regardless, the "basic" case information
included in the Blue message body would be standard for all compliant
implementations...this is what we must define in the specification.
Has this approach changed?
In any case, knowing how long it took to produce the current drafts of the
criminal complaint and citation reference IEPs, doing something similar would
take much more time than we have allotted for this week's exercise. If
this list of elements is to be included, we'll need to plan on a second session
at a later time.
> I attach a Word table setting forth the case initiation data elements that
I
> have discovered to date. They include input from the Administrative Office
> of US Courts, Orange County, FLA, Minneapolis, Missouri, Utah,
and King
> County, WA. The list includes case initiation data
for criminal, civil,
> bankruptcy, family, juvenile delinquency, juvenile dependency, mental
> health, traffic and probate cases.
>
> I am indebted to all who sent data elements to me.
>
> The exercise of putting this together convinces me that we need to include
> some mechanism for easily extending our schema(s) to allow for the
exchange
> of additional data elements. After I had incorporated several criminal
data
> element sets, I assumed that I had the matrix well populated. However, I
> found that each additional set of elements from a new jurisdiction
> contributed several new elements not used in the multiple element sets
that
> I had already incorporated.
>
> In short, I consider this a very substantial list of case initiation
> elements that will impress our stakeholders of the breadth of our inquiry.
> But I know it is not exhaustive, and, as Dallas Powell continually points
> out, it cannot be made exhaustive no matter how much work we commit to the
> task because of the unique data elements used and therefore required in
> different states and different courts within some states.
>
> I hope this is helpful to the reference document effort at the end of this
> week. I leave it to Scott Came to determine if and how it can be used in
> that exercise.
>
> 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