Tuesday conference call

Our regular monthly conference call is scheduled for Tuesday, October 11, 2005 at 1:00 pm Eastern time.

The conference call information is as follows:

Call in number 1-605-528-8855

Access code 2892164

OASIS has signed a contract with MTG to provide the support needed to complete ECF 3.0. The LegalXML Member Section Steering Committee has approved the expenditure of the funds needed for that contract.

The COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee has agreed to extend our deadline for ECF 3.0 to the first of November.

During the conference call we will resolve a series of issues raised by Shane Durham. While the review committee, consisting of Jim Cabral, Scott Came, Tom Clarke, and John Greacen, has accepted some of Shane’s recommendations, it disagreed with fifteen of them. Those recommendations are referred to the full Technical Committee for resolution.

Shane’s recommendations and the committee’s responses are set forth in the two documents attached. The first was posted early last week. The second resulted from a further conference call on Monday afternoon.

The issues presented for resolution by the Technical Committee are as follows:

1. Whether ECF 3.0 should have a single Court Policy MDE or multiple policy components attached to each MDE. The TC has followed the former policy. Shane Durham argues the latter. The members present in Seattle did not agree with Shane. He prepared a written argument in favor of his position. The review committee does not agree with him. Dallas Powell feels that there could be both programming related policy components for each MDE and a central Court Policy MDE for the purposes already defined by the TC.

Shane’s most recent proposal is that the Court Policy MDE should be subsumed within the Filing Review MDE.

2. Whether every query should be assigned to an existing MDE (Shane’s recommendation) or whether query/response pairs should be established as their own MDEs for flexibility of implementation (the committee’s recommendation).

3. Whether we should dispense with the GetFiling query (the committee’s recommendation). If not:

A. Whether the status of a filing should be included within the GetFiling Query (Shane’s recommendation) or continue to reside in a separate GetFilingStatus Query.

B. Whether we need a query that returns a single document contained in a filing, particularly for service (Shane’s recommendation).

4.. Whether we need to define additional queries for the service function, such as Get ServiceDeliveryHistory/Status Queries (Shane’s recommendation).

5. Whether we need a GetPolicy Query (Shane’s recommendation).

6. Whether we need a MessageAssembled Timestamp – the time at which a component assembled a message (Shane’s recommendation).

7. Whether we need a FilingAuthorized Timestamp – the time when a user approved (released) a filing to be sent to the filing review process (Shane’s recommendation).

8. Whether we need a FilingReceived Timestamp – the time when the filing review MDE received (lodged) a filing in addition to the originalMessageReceipt date and time (Shane’s recommendation).

9. Whether we need a FiledTimestamp – the legally effective date assigned to a filed document (Shane’s recommendation).

10. Whether we need a DocketingReceived Timestamp – the time when the court record process receives a docketing (Shane’s recommendation).

11. Whether we should adopt a model for person-organization relationships that is independent of the model used by GJXDM (Shane’s recommendation).

12 Whether we maintain the Service MDE (Shane believes that we eliminated it).

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

legalxml-courtfiling message