[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - ECF5 Spec Considerations-26 - jec comments.docx uploaded
|
Hi Jim C, With all due respect, the language intent as contained in the specification today is not “obvious” to this reader. In fact, for the reasons Gary outlined, there is quite a bit of ambiguity in the specification about the different types
of filing identifiers (plural). Items 3, and 4: GetFilingStatus does not require the
ECF filing identifier (emphasis added), yet it is included in the Figure 1 diagram included in the response. Like Gary, I’m purposely making the distinction between the filing identifier used in the context of an e-filing “transaction” and other filing
identifiers used for different purposes. Based on the following language:
…it appears to this reader that the specification is saying the ECF filing identifier is required for GetFilingStatus since it’s contained in the Figure 1 diagram. This isn’t accurate. In the context of this discussion, the GetFilingStatus
operation should either be removed from the diagram or there should be language explaining why GetFilingStatus (and any other applicable operation) does not require the ECF filing identifier. BTW: Gary’s response item 5 “E-Filing Transaction Scope” does
a really good job highlighting which operations do and do not require the ECF filing identifier. The answer for a given operation isn’t always black and white. Perhaps including a section in the specification entitled, “You know it’s an ECF filing identifier
when…” would help mitigate confusion. Item 6: ‘A’ filing identifier is cited in different contexts in the specification. ‘The’ filing identifier that Gary describes as the ECF filing identifier is specifically assigned by the FRMDE and is unique across the “e-filing
transaction”, i.e., it is “the” filing identifier. The ECF filing identifier can easily get confused with other filing identifiers, such as those assigned by FAMDEs, Service MDEs, as well as identifiers assigned by attorney/law firms for customer accounting
purposes. The FRMDE-assigned filing identifier does not need to be called the ECF filing identifier, but it should be clearly and explicitly differentiated from other filing identifiers contained in the specification. Item 7: The phrase “e-filing transaction” requires a clear and unambiguous definition, especially in light of Items 3, 4, and 6 referenced above. The word “transaction” can easily be confused with the word “operation”, which is
limited to specific request-response message exchanges. The word “episode” isn’t much better. The life of an e-filed submission (which contains case data, documents, and metadata) has an finite beginning and ending, just like projects. In other words, submissions
have a predefined lifecycle – from assembly/submission to clerk review/docketing to notifications to e-filers, payment providers, and other stakeholders. There are, of course, sunny day and exception handling conditions. For example, submission processing
can be terminated due to rejection by the court or an unrecoverable technical error. Either way, the success/fail paths are part of a submission lifecycle. Regards, Jim Price From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of James Cabral CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]