RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models for ECF3

["Cabral, James E." <JCabral@mtgmc.com>]

Robert,

Sorry for the late response - I've been away this weekend.  My responses
are included below.
 
  jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert DeFilippis [mailto:RTD@onelegal.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 2:06 PM
To: Cabral, James E.; Dallas Powell; Electronic Court Filing Technical
Committeee
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models for ECF3

Jim-Dallas:

In reading through this proposal, I have some questions that may have
been previously addressed.  Please bear with me.

1. Are we assuming that the Court CMS will support the Filing Assembly
MDE associated with a registered party as part of their profile?


The eService Registry MDE will be able to obtain the contact information
(mail address) and/or serviceID (Filing Assembly/Service MDE) and userID
associated with each party in each case. The Registry MDE may track this
information or it may get this information from the CMS - that detail is
outside the specification.


2. Step 2 mentions electronic addresses and mailing addresses.  Are fax
numbers and physical addresses also supported?


The only electronic addresses are the serviceID and userID of each
party.  The only other option is a standard mailing address, which could
be a physical address if necessary for delivery.  The method of
communication between a user and the Filing Assembly/Service MDE is
outside the specification so if a user wished to receive service via
fax, they would be up to them and their service provider.


3. In Step 4, would the Central eService MDE also "rebroadcast" to
eService MDE A IF the scenario included two parties registered there
instead of just the one?


That's an interesting nuance.  My opinion would be that we would want to
handle service consistently for all parties in the case.  So, at the
risk of a redundant messages or two I would think that the Central
eService MDE would need to send it back to eService MDE A in that case.


Also, it seems to be that Step 4 could be collapsed into Step 3 since
it's really an option variation (Required).    


-Robert 


-----Original Message-----
From: Cabral, James E. [mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:10 PM
To: Dallas Powell; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models for ECF3

Dallas,
 
Here are my suggestions.  I agreed with many but not all of the issues
you identified.  
 
Scott Came is putting together the schemas this weekend.  I am hoping
that this service model is now sufficiently developed for his needs.
Unfortunately,I will be away this weekend with little or no access to
email.
 
jim

________________________________

From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 12:41 PM
To: Cabral, James E.; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models for ECF3


Jim and everyone,
 
Here is a new document that I think incorporate Jim's changes and adds
new issues that were also on the Thursday call but were too much
information for the first document.  If this works, we can continue to
expand.
 
 
Dallas
	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: Cabral, James E. <mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com>  
	To: Dallas Powell <mailto:dpowell@tybera.com>  ; Electronic
Court Filing Technical Committeee
<mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>  
	Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 7:11 PM
	Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models
for ECF3

	Dallas,
	 
	Here is a revision that I think solves the issues you
identified.  I think we still need the query in Model B so that eService
A can decide to serve something that will not be part of the court
record.  By separating out the MDE that responds to the query (I called
it the "eService Registry") and the central MDE that serves the other
participants, I think it aligns the two models.  
	 
	  jim
	
________________________________

	From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 5:28 PM
	To: 'Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee'
	Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models for
ECF3
	
	
	Here is what I think we said today regarding the eService.  As I
wrote the document I found several issues that need to be addressed.
	 
	Dallas