RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02

ECF PaymentMessage

How should the ECF deal with filings (like criminal case documents from the prosecutor) that have no payments? Another example would be filings from another government agency such as social or children services?

You also have waivers and pay at counter. Pay at counter comes up when you have mandated Pro Se filers and they don’t have a credit card, or checking account, and they bring in pre paid cards, cash, and whatever to get it going.

The cardinality of messages in ECF is unclear.

For example, in section C.2.1 Provided Operations, the following is included:

The Filing Review MDE provides the following operations to other MDEs:

Operation	Called By	Output	Parameters
ReviewFiling	Filing Assembly MDE	xsd/message/ECF-4.0-MessageReceiptMessage.xsd : MessageReceiptMessage	xsd/message/ECF-4.0-CoreFilingMessage.xsd : CoreFilingMessage
			xsd/message/ECF-4.0-PaymentMessage.xsd : PaymentMessage

I have always interpreted this to mean:

MessageReceiptMessage = ReviewFiling(CoreFilingMessage, PaymentMessage)

As such, the call to the ReviewFiling operation requires a CoreFilingMessage argument and also requires a PaymentMessage argument (and does not allow multiple messages of either kind, e.g. maxOccurs=”1”).

This interpretation is supported by the WebServices SIP wsdl available from ECF as shown in the extract below:

<xsd:complexType name="ReviewFilingRequestMessageType">

<xsd:annotation>

<xsd:documentation>Multi-part message type (required for conformance with WS-I Basic Profile 1.1</xsd:documentation>

</xsd:annotation>

<xsd:complexContent>

<xsd:extension base="ecf:ElectronicFilingMessageType">

<xsd:sequence>

<xsd:element ref="core:CoreFilingMessage"/>

<xsd:element ref="payment:PaymentMessage"/>

</xsd:sequence>

</xsd:extension>

</xsd:complexContent>

</xsd:complexType>

<xsd:element name="ReviewFilingRequestMessage" type="ReviewFilingRequestMessageType">

<xsd:annotation>

<xsd:documentation>Multi-part message (required for conformance with WS-I Basic Profile 1.1</xsd:documentation>

</xsd:annotation>

</xsd:element>

So since a PaymentMessage is required, and when there is no payment, how should this be handled with ECF?

In Arizona, we address this by using what is essentially an ‘inert’ PaymentMessage. Here’s an example:

Example 6 – No Fees

This example shows a submission where no fees apply to the submission, e.g. Criminal case type submission.

<aoc:PaymentMessage

xmlns:payment="urn:oasis:names:tc:legalxml-courtfiling:schema:xsd:PaymentMessage-4.0" xmlns:cbc="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonBasicComponents-2" xmlns:cac="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:schema:xsd:CommonAggregateComponents-2" xsi:schemaLocation="urn:oasis:names:tc:legalxml-courtfiling:schema:xsd:PaymentMessage-4.0 ../xsd/message/ECF-4.0-PaymentMessage.xsd">

<payment:FeeExceptionReasonCode/>

<payment:FeeExceptionSupportingText/>

<payment:PayerName/>

<aoc:AllowanceCharge>

<cbc:ChargeIndicator>false</cbc:ChargeIndicator>

<cbc:Amount currencyID="USD">0.00</cbc:Amount>

</aoc:AllowanceCharge>

<cac:Address/>

<cac:Payment/>

</aoc:PaymentMessage>

From: Dallas Powell [mailto:dpowell@tybera.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:13 AM
To: McMillan, Jim; Graham, Gary; James E Cabral
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02

Dallas

From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of McMillan, Jim
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:05 PM
To: Graham, Gary; James E Cabral
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02

Gary – I like these but have a question. How should the ECF deal with filings (like criminal case documents from the prosecutor) that have no payments? Another example would be filings from another government agency such as social or children services? I apologize if these are dumb questions. – Jim M

From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Graham, Gary
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:47 PM
To: James E Cabral
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] RE: ECF 4.01 Errata 02

The attached document contains some items for consideration for ECF 4.01 Errata 02.

From: James E Cabral [mailto:jec@mtgmc.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:09 PM
To: Graham, Gary
Subject: Re: ECF 4.01 Errata 02

Gary,

It’s been a couple weeks. Before we draft the errata, you let me know what else you think we should include?

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

From: Gary Graham
Sent: ‎Tuesday‎, ‎March‎ ‎17‎, ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎16‎ ‎AM
To: James E Cabral

Yes, thanks just been a bit busy.

There are a couple of other small items that I wanted to provide to the TC for consideration as well.

From: James E Cabral [mailto:jec@mtgmc.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 2:38 PM
To: Graham, Gary
Subject: Re: ECF 4.01 Errata 02

Gary,

Did you get this?

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

From: James E Cabral
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎March‎ ‎12‎, ‎2015 ‎4‎:‎48‎ ‎PM
To: Gary Graham

Gary,

I saw on the minutes from the TC meeting Tuesday that you offered to look into Errata 02. There is an action item assigned to me but I’m happy to have help if you are offering.

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-courtfiling/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=3736

The scope of the errata as defined in the action item includes:

Update specifications and schemas to reference new UBL 2.1 (now an OASIS standard)

Update specifications and schemas to reference FIPS 180-4 (supercedes FIPS 180-2)

Update contentIDs in Figure 2 to conform with RFC2392 (add brackets)

These changes should be pretty easy.

Is there anything else we need to consider for Errata 02?

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

legalxml-courtfiling message

Example 6 – No Fees