[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proper Use of SendingLocationMDE
|
Gary, I’ve attached answers to your questions below. Jim Cabral James
E. Cabral Jr. 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: Graham, Gary
[mailto:GGraham@courts.az.gov] Thank you for the clarification; as a result, I will want to amend
the Message examples I provided previoulsy. I am now focusing on the Ploicy messages and have a few additional
questions regarding Policy. Policy – The ECF 3.01 specification, section 2.4.4
‘Court Specific Code Lists’, says a “court SHOULD provide
values for each of the following code lists…” Included in the list
of code lists is <ErrorCode>. I presume this would be used to by the
Filing Review MDE to inform the Filing Assembly MDE of the Error Codes that it
may expect to receive, and include a textual description for each code. I am
not aware of any standard for these codes other than ‘zero’ (0)
which means no error. I further presume that these <ErrorCode>s would be
communicated to the Filing Review MDE in the CourtPolicyResponseMessage.
However, the XML does not appear to contain elements for returning the
<ErrorCode> list (there are elements to communicate whether or not an
error occurred in the GetPolicy operation). Furthermore, I cannot find any XSD
for the <ErrorCode> list. Are there standard codes? Is there
an XSD for Error Codes? Where in the message do these codes go?
<CourtExtension>? Or <CoreCodeList>? What should the value be for
<ElementName> within <CoreCodeList>? (in the XML Example, for Case
Type, the value is ‘common:CaseTypeCode’ – in the common
folder I find an ECF-3.0-CaseType.xsd, but not a CaseTypeCode.xsd) How is
Error Severity communicated? All
messages (including CourtPolicyResponseMessage) include the Error element which
includes ErrorCode and ErrorText elements. The ErrorCode element is based on PolicyDefinedCodeTextType which
indicates that the court should define the code list in Court Policy. The
definition for ErrorCode says that 0 is reserved for “no error”
but this is not enforced in schema. There is no built-in mechanism in ECF
for communicating error severity but, if a court needed it, the court could
associate certain severity levels with certain codes (e.g. errors 100-200 are
minor, error 200-300 are severe, etc.) Or, is there no need to send a full Error Code set from the Filing
Review MDE to the Filing Assembly MDE because only the ‘current’
error(s) (if any, else 0 – No Error) is returned, and the Filing Assembly
MDE can just display the returned DisplayText to the user? Right
– there is no need to send a full Error Code set since it is defined in
Court Policy. The ECF-3.0-CourtPolicyResponseMessage.xsd permits zero to
unlimited message:Error elements. When the called operation returns multiple
error codes, is there a standard or a convention on how this should be done?
(i.e. in the order the errors occurred, or most significant to least significant,
etc.) There
is no current standard or convention for this. Is it important enough that
we need to add one? How many Revision Numbers? ECF 3.01 states: “The court MUST have only one active,
authoritative version of its human-readable, development-time, and run-time
policies at a given time.” The term “only one” suggests that
the combined set of Human-readable policy and Machine-readable policy is
considered a single policy. However, ECF 3.01 also states: “The
court’s human-readable and machine-readable court policies MUST both have
a version numbering method associated with them.” This seems to suggest
two separate version numbers as “both” “MUST”
“have a version numbering method”; not “both MUST have a
single version numbering …”. However, the
ECF-3.0-CourtPolicyResponseMessage.xsd only contains one Policy version element
(i.e. policyresponse:PolicyVersionID). If there are two version numbers, which
(Human or Machine-Readable) goes into policyresponse:PolicyVersionID, and where
does the other go? The
human-readable and machine-readable policies are versioned separately.
The CourtPolicyResponseMessage only returns the machine-readable version and
therefore, only includes one Policy version number. We do not define a
structure for human-readable policies but it must include the version somewhere
in the human-readable policy. Also note that the XSD definition for
policyresponse:PolicyVersionID may be incorrect. It states that it’s
“up to the court to define the format for this” (the version
number); however, it appears that ECF 3.01 section 2.4 defines the format of
version as MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH (however, it’s specified as a SHOULD comply,
not a MUST). I
think this is ok. We say the court MUST define a format it and suggest a
recommended format but don’t require them to use it. Gary Graham -----Original Message----- Gary, The definitions of
message:SendingMDEProfileCode and message:ReceivingMDEProfileCode still
referred to “message profiles” which were renamed “service
interaction profiles” in ECF 3.01 to bring us into conformance with the
OASIS SOA Reference Model. I have now updated the definitions. The
profile codes are defined ECF 3.0 Service Interaction Profiles, e.g. the ECF
3.0 Web Services Service Interaction Profile uses the following code: urn:oasis:names:tc:legalxml-courtfiling:schema:xsd:WebServicesMessaging-1.0. Regarding the
SendingMDELocationID, the complete definition is “Location for the MDE to
which asynchronous and service messages can be sent. This unique location is
self-assigned by the MDE.” This definition is consistent with its
use. In short, the MDE receiving a message already knows its own ID
– it just needs to receive the ID of the sending MDE. In your example: FilingReview operation 1. FilingAssemblyMDE
sends a CoreFilingMessage with SendingMDELocationID set to the
FilingAssemblyMDE’s ID. 2. FilingReviewMDE
sends a MessageReceiptMessage (synchronous response) with SendingMDELocaitonID
set to the FilingReviewMDE’s ID. NotifyFilingReviewComplete
operation (after review and docketing is complete): 3. FilingReviewMDE
sends a ReviewFilingCallbackMessage (asynchronous response) with
SendingMDELocaitonID set to the FilingReviewMDE’s ID. Does this clarify? Jim Cabral James E. Cabral Jr. 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: Graham, Gary [mailto:GGraham@courts.az.gov]
I’m having some trouble trying to
determine the proper use of the elements <message:SendingMDELocationID> and <message:SendingMDEProfileCode>, specifically in the
CourtPolicyResponseMessage, but generally, in any message. From the XSD, you can find the following
definitions: <message:SendingMDELocationID> - Location
for the MDE to which asynchronous and service messages can be sent. This unique
location is self-assigned by the MDE. <message:SendingMDEProfileCode> - Code
identifying the message profile being used by the sending filing assembly MDE.
This list should be extensible to accommodate future messaging profiles. Each
code value is specified within the message profile approved for use with ECF. The Sample XML simply shows ‘MDEID’ as the
example for Location, and ‘MESSAGINGPROFILEID’ for the Profile. So here’s my question: In the
CourtPolicyResponseMessage which is being returned to the Filing Assembly MDE
from the Filing Review MDE, should the <message:SendingMDELocationID> identify the Filing
Assembly MDE and not the Filing Review MDE? On the Sequence Diagram from the
specification document (i.e. ecf-v3.01-spec-wd02.doc, page 23) the response is
shown as a dashed line which indicates a synchronous response. However, the
definition of <message:SendingMDELocationID> addresses ‘asynchronous
and service messages’; it is neither. Is this just an error in the
definition or am I missing something? The definition for <message:SendingMDEProfileCode> talks about a
“message profile”. What is a “message profile”, and
where is this defined? It also mentions a “list”. Where is this
list of message profiles? How are practitioners using this element? Also, it says it’s the profile
“used by the sending filing assembly MDE”; so if the answer to the
first Location question is Filing Review MDE and not Filing Assembly MDE as I
suggest, then please explain. Thank you in advance for your considered
response, Gary Graham Arizona Supreme Court |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]