FW: Minutes: June 6 Springboard ECF Initiative Biweekly Meeting

ECF TC :

Below please find minutes from the most recent Springboard ECF call . . .

--Jim

James M. Harris

ü Please print responsibly

From: Scott Serich [mailto:Scott.Serich@ijis.org]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 1:13 PM
To: Springboard ECF Initiative Team
Subject: Minutes: June 6 Springboard ECF Initiative Biweekly Meeting

To: Springboard ECF Initiative Team

From: Scott Serich, Project Manager

Minutes: June 6 Springboard ECF Initiative Biweekly Meeting

1. Preparation for Jun 20 call

a. Carefully review the 57 proposed conformance classes and be prepared to voice any objections or suggestions for improvement

2. Brief news updates

a. Core Spec has been approved as a formal OASIS standard

3. Jim C. led a discussion whereby the Initiative Team agreed (tentatively) to 56+1 =57 “conformance classes”

4. Definitions: what is a “conformance class”?

a. The term “conformance target” seems to have multiple meanings, so let’s avoid it for now

b. Instead, let’s start with “assertions,” which form the basic units for determining the passing and not passing of tests

c. For simplicity, let’s agree that each “assertion” roughly correspond to a lowest-level “requirement” from the Core Spec

i. For example, validity against a particular schema could represent one assertion

ii. The ability to correctly return a SOAP fault could be another assertion

d. Generally, each assertion will correspond to a soapUI “test case” in the Springboard Test Harness

e. Test cases are sequenced together to form soapUI “test suites” (testing multiple assertions)

f. To avoid being tied to the soapUI language, the assertions tested by a test suite can be labeled abstractly a “basic test”

g. A “conformance class” can then be defined as an agreed, labeled set of one or more basic tests

i. Each ECF conformance classes will likely point to more than one basic test

ii. A conformance class can include another conformance class by reference

h. Each conformance class could be used to support an attestation on behalf of a customer obtaining a Springboard certification

i. Under the current, a customer could potentially acquire a Springboard certification identifying up to 57 classes (or 57 certifications, each identifying a single class, etc.)

5. What has been agreed to on the past two calls?

a. Global rules (across all conformance classes)

i. Any available Section 3.3 Message [content] Business Rule must be implemented when applicable

ii. Any Section 4 ECF 4.0 Schema must be implemented when applicable

iii. The Section 5 Service Interaction Profiles “Web Services SIP 2.1 Specification” must be implemented on all tests

b. An independent conformance class will be provided for implementation of the Section 6: Document Signature Profiles “XML Document Signature Profile”

i. A customer would only run the corresponding test once, not 56 times over

c. 4x7x2 = 56 additional conformance classes should be based on the following dimensions

i. MDEs (4)

1. Legal Service [send none, accept 1]

2. Filing Assembly [send 10, accept 1]

3. Filing Review [send 2, accept 6]

4. Court Record [send 1, accept 5]

ii. Case types (7)

1. Appellate

2. Bankruptcy

3. Civil (including general civil, mental health, probate and small claims)

4. Criminal (both felony and misdemeanor)

5. Domestic relations (including divorce, separation, child custody and child support, domestic violence and parentage)

6. Juvenile (both delinquency and dependency)

7. Violations (including traffic, ordinances and parking)

iii. Operations (2)

1. Required-operations-only

a. ReviewFiling, RecordFiling, NotifyDocketingComplete, NotifyFilingReviewComplete

2. All-required-and-optional-operations

a. 4 required operations plus:

i. GetPolicy, GetServiceInformation, GetFeesCalculation, ServeFiling

ii. GetFilingList, GetFilingStatus (when filing accessible)

iii. GetCaseList, GetCase, GetDocument (when case accessible)

3. Note: an MDE that does not participate in the sending or accepting of an operation need not implement it

6. Deferred

a. Won’t testing extensions themselves, but would like validation that an implementation makes no changes to the core (NIEM and ECF) schemas

b. Walk through an outline of the ECF Service Conformance Package (SCP)

7. Future calls will be held every other Thursday from 4:00 to 5:00pm Eastern Time. The next call will be held June 20.

· Roll (organizations only):

o Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts

o Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts

o CSI Technology Group

o Geocent LLC

o Integrated Software Specialists

o MTG Management Consultants

o URL Integration

o OASIS ECF Technical Committee (NCSC, MTG)

o Springboard Governance (Appriss, OGC)

o Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment

o IJIS Institute

· Unable to attend

o New Hampshire Judicial Branch, Administrative Office of the Courts

o New Dawn Technologies

o Tybera Development Group

o Bureau of Justice Assistance

Thanks.

=====

Scott Serich, PhD, JD

Senior Project Manager, IJIS Institute

44983 Knoll Square, Ashburn, VA 20147-2692

703.283.3432 -- scott.serich@ijis.org -- www.ijis.org

=====

legalxml-courtfiling message