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

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

Title: Please review 'Proposed Service Models for ECF3'

Shane,

 

John and Tom have asked to brin our discussion around service to a close.  Here's my response to your comments:

 

1. I agree.

 

2. I like your diagrams - let's use them.  However,...

 

3. I think your distinction between MDEs and applications actually confuses more than explains.  In your model, a request comes from an application but the response to that request is returned to an MDE.

Jim Cabral

James E. Cabral Jr.
MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C.
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2700
Seattle, WA 98101-3201
(206) 442-5010
www.mtgmc.com

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

---

From: Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 10:46 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] New Proposed Service Models for ECF3

1. I have attached my comments to the eServiceFlow description distributed by Dallas.

 

The gist of my comments are that the system does not need to explicitly identify when a service hub has been implemented. 

 

Aside from that discrepancy, I think Dallas and I are largely on the same page.

 

 

2. I have attached diagrams to illustrate how I see the ServiceFlow, with and without the use of a Service hub. 

 

My view does not differ all that much from Dallas's view.

 

 

3. The diagrams also attempt to illustrate a prior statement I made concerning how we define our MDEs.

 

During last week's conference call, I said that our MDEs are defined by the messages they receive, rather than the messages they transmit.  

 

I think that recognizing this distinction will help some of our members understand how a Service Hub, implementing a ServiceMDE, can exist independently of a corresponding FilingAssemblyMDE. 

 

In the diagrams, please note that my 'arrow-heads' (the function call's destination) all lead into an MDE.

However, the 'line tips' (the function calls' origination) all begin at an 'Application'.

 

There are times when we have previously said:

xxMDE transmits a message to yyMDE

 

When, it would have been more accurate to have said:

XxxApplication transmits a message, via the yyMDE, to YyyApplication.

 

For example:

Filer's application transmits a ReviewFiling message, via the ReviewFilingMDE, to the court's ReviewFiling application.

 

 

I am not necessarily advocating that we must always substitute the word 'application' anytime we are talking about the initiator of a function call.   I only enter into this discussion so that we really understand how or MDEs are defined, and, to better understand how ServiceMDE and FilingAssemblyMDE can be independently implemented.

 

- Shane Durham

LexisNexis

 

 

---

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.

To: Dallas Powell ; Electronic Court Filing Technical Committeee

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