[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: DocumentStampInformation
|
I meant to say I’ll ADD nc:Case to stampinformation:DocumentStampInformationMessage in WD33. __ From: James E Cabral
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 2:44:50 PM To: McMillan, Jim; Baughman, Philip; Othon, Enrique; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: DocumentStampInformation OK. I’ll nc:Case to stampinformation:DocumentStampInformationMessage in WD33. __ From: McMillan, Jim <jmcmillan@ncsc.org>
Sent: Monday, July 2, 2018 12:17:20 PM To: Baughman, Philip; James E Cabral; Othon, Enrique; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: DocumentStampInformation Thanks Philip. I think I understand? It’s binary – stamped or not. Accepted for filing or not. Makes sense. – Jim M From: Baughman, Philip [mailto:Philip.Baughman@tylertech.com]
Hello. The reason nc:Case should be included is for case initiation, as follows: The stamping system is responsible for stamping documents for the new case filing. The stamping system relies upon another system (likely the Clerk CMS) for case assignment (assigning the case number, the court, etc.) and the details of
the case are pertinent to the case assignment process. Philip Baughman From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of McMillan, Jim Sounds like a good analysis. Anyway.. the question of the purpose of DocumentStampInformation remains??? Jim M From: James E Cabral [mailto:jec@mtgmc.com]
Jim, I’m pretty sure they are using the CRC as the hash. The verification code may simply be the document identifier in the court record system. __ From: McMillan, Jim <jmcmillan@ncsc.org> I think that Brazil is calling their hash a “verification code”. Lawyers don’t know what a hash is. – Jim M From: James E Cabral [mailto:jec@mtgmc.com]
Jim, We continue to support a hash for reviewed documents. What is the utility of the verification code? __ From: McMillan, Jim <jmcmillan@ncsc.org> The federal courts put their Hash out there as part of the Document Stamp (which is a verification btw). We need to also deal with Block Chain for this IMHO. Brazil does a nice job on this. I wrote about it back in March at:
https://courttechbulletin.blogspot.com/2018/03/court-document-verification-in-brazil.html Notice that they include a “verification code” and a CRC code. Jim M From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of James E Cabral Enrique, stampinformation:DocumentStampInformationMessage includes ecf:CaseTrackingID and j:CaseNumberText which I believe is correct. stampinformationcallback:NotifyDocumentStampInformationMessage includes ecf:CaseTrackingID and nc:Case.
Is there a reason stampinformation:DocumentStampInformationMessage should include nc:Case? __ From:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Othon, Enrique <Enrique.Othon@tylertech.com> I was looking at the DocumentStampInformation request and I noticed the schema doesn’t include an nc:Case element. Is there a reason for that or just an oversight? |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]