Re: [legalxml-enotary] Two items for consideration by eNotary TC

[John L Jones <jjones@arionzoe.com>]

I may be missing something. Sometimes I'm a little slow, so please help me understand the need for LegalXML and OASIS to provide these 2 items. I understand there may be some utility, but are those for a standards setting organization to provide?

How many other tools have OASIS TC's developed for performance testing? And why is one needed specifically notary as compared to some of the more significantly more complex specifications such as the various security related ones? I have difficulty believing that an OASIS tool would prevent someone from challenging a notarization if the stakes were high enough. Then OASIS gets the opportunity to defend it's tool or forfeit the spec.

As for the icon I don't understand what the value of the assurance is unless the certificate and notary information is not visible. I can't imagine an icon by itself would suffice. If the document is wrapped in an XML file with the notarial information it will have to have a way to be made visible whether or not a icon is used. The icon may be useful in alerting a viewer that a document is notarized, but it can't stand on it's own. As was noted by Gerard Ashton the icons can be manipulated. This idea becomes more of an document software application implementation issue.

Mr. Ashton also makes a point regarding whether or not an element in the XSD is optional or mandatory. Unless a data point is required by all jurisdictions it should be optional in the specification. Enterprising developers may figure out how to customize their software to provide state specific rules that know when to require an element and when to omit it. But we need to ensure that all the elements are correctly tagged with attributes to reflect this. Can we get a list of the elements we've agreed on so we can help you decide the appropriate attributes?

-------
John


Arshad Noor wrote:

456014.1231217608455858.JavaMail.root@gw.noorhome.net" type="cite">

Gentlemen (and Carol),

Thinking about the eNotary specification that we plan to put
out this year for electronically notarized documents, and after
some discussions with people on this topic, I believe there are
two important items of work that this TC must contemplate
producing along with the XML Schema Definition (XSD) standard.
These are:

1) A testing tool to test eNotarized documents for conformance
with the forthcoming OASIS standard; and
2) Visual representation marks for eNotarized documents that
   are standardized across applications.

The first is critical to application developers - as well as 
the courts - since there must be a single tool that can be
referenced in the event there are disputes between two different
implementations of software which deal with eNotarized documents
and that produce different results.  The standard OASIS testing
tool will allow developers to test their software implementations 
for conformance with the TC's spec BEFORE they release their SW,
thus ensuring that their software does not produce different 
results for sample eNotarized documents.

The second is equally critical - but to end-users and relying
parties who would appreciate a consistent representation of an
eNotarized document across applications.  While software may have
passed the conformance test in #1, if each vendor chooses to
display the result of verifying an eNotarized document with its
own icons/representations, it could lead to confusion in the
industry despite the OASIS standard.

I would propose that this TC take up these two work-items and 
create the conformance tool and visual icons so that the value 
of the OASIS eNotary standard is not diluted.

To that extent I would also propose that, after the TC has come to 
an agreement on these work-items, it put out RFP's for the creation
of these artifacts.  The terms, ownership, licensing, etc. can all
be worked out in conjunction with OASIS staff (who are copied on
this e-mail for expediency).

I would also recommend that, while OASIS can make the conformance
testing tool freely available to adopters, the visual icons should
be restricted for use by only OASIS members, and only if they have 
shown conformance with the tool through an independent testing 
process.  Not only does this reinforce the value of an OASIS 
membership, but it protects the "brand" of an OASIS-compliant 
eNotarized document.  For end-users who will have to deal with 
eNotarized documents in their software, seeing standardized icons 
in a consistent manner within eNotarized documents will enhance the 
value of the standard to the entire industry.

Thoughts/Reactions?

Arshad Noor
StrongAuth, Inc.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php