[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Operation Names in ECF
|
Gary, The names of the operations are defined in the main body of the core
specification so the names are normative. That said, it should be noted that interoperability is really
achieved through the services that implement the operations and are defined
in the service interaction profiles. The SIPs defined in ECF use the
normative names of the operations. For example, the web services
SIP, defines service ports and bindings for each MDE that include the operations
as named and defined in the core specification. jim From: Graham, Gary
[mailto:GGraham@courts.az.gov] Are
the names of the operations defined in ECF normative? Different
readers of the ECF specification have arrived different interpretations of
regarding names of the operations (such as GetPolicy, GetServiceInformation,
GetFeesCalculation, ReviewFiling, ServeFiling, RecordFiling, etc.). The
specification includes statements such as : 3.2.4 ReviewFiling
The Filing Assembly MDE MUST submit the filing to the
court by invoking the ReviewFiling operation on the Filing Review MDE.
The ReviewFiling operation includes messages for the core filing, for case
type-specific information, for court-specific information, and for the filing
payment. The Filing Review MDE responds synchronously with a receipt
message that includes the filing identifier issued by the court. One interpretation is that the operations must have the
literal names indicated, such as 'ReviewFiling' in the example above. The alternative interpretation is that implementations
are free to name the operation as they see fit, provided it meets the
requirements set out for the operation. Can anyone please help clarify this? Thanks Gary Graham Arizona Supreme Court IT Manager |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]