OASIS Legal XML



OASIS Legal XML

Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee

Telephone Conference Call

November 10, 2005

1:00 p.m. Eastern (10:00 a.m. Pacific)

Attendance Voting Member / Member / Observer

|Name |Last Name |Present |

|John Aerts (LA County Information) |Aerts | |

|Jed Alpert (Wolters Kluwer) |Alpert | |

|Richard Baker (Judicial Council of Georgia) |Baker | |

|Jeff Barlow (WA AOC) |Barlow |X |

|Jim Beard (Individual) |Beard |X |

|Donald Bergeron (Reed Elsevier) |Bergeron |X |

|Terry Bousquin (Individual) |Bousquin |X |

|Rex Brooks (, Inc.) |Brooks | |

|James Cabral (MTG Management Consultants) |Cabral |X |

|Scott Came (Individual) |Came |X |

|Ockert Cameron (Individual) |Cameron | |

|Tom Carlson (National Center for State Courts) |Carlson |X |

|Rolly Chambers (American Bar Association) |Chambers | |

|Jamie Clark (OASIS Staff) |Clark | |

|Jim Clark (Microsoft Corporation) |Clark | |

|Thomas Clarke, Co-Chair (National Center for State Courts) |Clarke |X |

|Robin Cover (OASIS) |Cover | |

|James Cusick (Wolters Kluwer) |Cusick | |

|Robert DeFilippis (Individual) |DeFilippis | |

|Ann Dillon (Washington AOC) |Dillon | |

|Christopher (Shane) Durham (Reed Elsevier) |Durham | |

|Scott Edson (LA County Information Systems Advisory Body) |Edson | |

|Chet Ensign (Reed Elsevier) |Ensign | |

|Steven Fiore (Sierra Systems) |Fiore | |

|Robin Gibson, Secretary (Missouri AOC) |Gibson | |

|Charles Gilliam (ContentGuard) |Gilliam | |

|David Goodwin (Maricopa County) |Goodwin |X |

|John Greacen, Co-Chair (Individual) |Greacen |X |

|Franklin Hagler (Individual) |Hagler | |

|Jim Harris (Individual) |Harris |X |

|Jason Harrop (Individual) |Harrop | |

|Brian Hickman (Wolters Kluwer) |Hickman | |

|Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt (MTG Management Company) |Hoashi-Erhardt |X |

|Allen Jensen (Orange County Superior Court) |Jensen | |

|Jeff Karotkin (Individual) |Karotkin | |

|Pieter Kasselman (Cybertrust) |Kasselman | |

|Laurence Leff, Secretary (Individual) |Leff |X |

|Todd Marsh (Sierra Systems) |Marsh | |

|Roger Martin (AOL) |Martin | |

|Rex McElrath (Judicial Council of Georgia) |McElrath | |

|John Messing (Law-On-Line, American Bar Association) |Messing | |

|Brad Midstokke (Sierra Systems) |Midstokke | |

|Rockie Morgan (Sierra Systems) |Morgan | |

|Shogan Naidoo (Individual) |Naidoo | |

|Robert O’Brien (Individual) |O’Brien | |

|Dan O’Day (Thomson Corporation) |O’Day | |

|Mark Oldenburg Washington AOC |Oldenburg | |

|Ellen Perry (MTG Management Consultants) |Perry | |

|Catherine Plummer (SEARCH Group, Inc.) |Plummer | |

|Gary Poindexter (Individual) |Poindexter | |

|Nick Pope (Individual) |Pope | |

|Dallas Powell (Individual) |Powell |X |

|David Roth (Thomson Corporation) |Roth | |

|John Ruegg (LA County Information Systems Advisory Body) |Ruegg | |

|Tony Rutkowski (Verisign) |Rutkowski | |

|Nancy Rutter (Maricopa County) |Rutter | |

|Dan Sawka (Washington AOC) |Sawka | |

|Scott Schumacher (Thomson Corporation) |Schumacher | |

|Mark Slosberg (Sierra Systems) |Slosberg | |

|Christopher Smith (California AOC) |Smith |X |

|Tom Smith (Individual) |Smith | |

|Ann Sweeney (Washington AOC) |Sweeney | |

|Steven Taylor (Individual) |Taylor | |

|Eric Tingom (Individual) Prospective |Tingom | |

|Winfield Wagner (Crossflo Systems Inc.) |Wagner | |

|Mike Waite (US Department of Justice) |Waite | |

|Larry Webster (SEARCH Group, Inc.) |Webster | |

|D. Welsh (Microsoft Corporation) |Welsh | |

|Roger Winters, Editor, Representative to Member Section Steering Committee |Winters | |

|(Washington AOC, King County) | | |

Agenda

Review of the ECF 3.0 Summary and Introduction

Review of the Web Services Messaging Profile

Review of the Portable Media Messaging Profile

Decisions

1. The Summary and Introduction will be divided into two documents – an Executive Summary and an Introduction to ECF 3.0.

2. The Executive Summary will be completed for submission to the Joint Technology Committee. Its purpose is to make the business case for use of the specification. Its audience is the Joint Technology Committee. MTG and Terrie Bousquin will prepare a further version for review within a day.

3. The Introduction to ECF 3.0 will be completed for review by the TC at its Las Vegas face to face December 8 and 9. Its purpose will be to explain the structure of the specification so that court domain experts will be able to access it for purpose of reviewing its completeness. Its audience will be the new Court Information Technology Officers Consortium and court domain experts CITOC members enlist to review the specification.

5. Jim Cabral agreed to incorporate Scott Came’s suggestions for the Web Services Profile. It is now considered final, subject to TC voting member ratification on KAVI.

6. The Portable Media Messaging Profile, though different in scope from our original expectations, is valid. Jim Cabral will make one small change to it. It is now considered final, subject to TC voting member ratification on KAVI.

7. John Greacen will delete the current KAVI ballot for the Summary and Introduction and create a new ballot for the Executive Summary.

Discussion

Introductory Matters

The TC agreed to the participation of Joe Wheeler from MTG who offered comments as a non-technical reader of the Summary and Introduction. The TC agreed to Jim Cabral’s recording the phone call for purposes of insuring inclusion of all comments.

Summary and Introduction

Terrie Bousquin reported on comments received and recommended that the document be split into separate documents.

The Executive Summary would include the first couple of pages and would focus on the business case for the specification. It would incorporate language concerning the absence of licensing issues. Its audience would be the Joint Technology Committee.

A separate Introduction to ECF 3.0 would include the remainder of the document. Its purpose would be a roadmap to the specification, its artifacts, and its associated documents. Its audience would be the Court Information Technology Officers Consortium and court domain experts CITOC will call upon to review ECF 3.0 for completeness.

This proposal was generally supported. There was discussion concerning the inclusion of a picture or graphic showing the data and system relationships. Jim Cabral suggested the sequence diagram from the specification. That was rejected as intelligible only to persons familiar with UML. Tom Clarke reported that the PowerPoint that John Greacen presented to the Joint Technology Committee in July showing the MDEs and the exchange of messages in a typical eFiling transaction was considered too technical as well.

John Greacen pointed out that in his experience the Joint Technology Committee members do not need or expect to understand the specification from a technical standpoint.

Joe Wheeler offered MTG’s services to produce a draft of an Executive Summary by the close of business today. Terrie Bousquin will assist. The document will refer to the forthcoming Introduction and will seek the assistance of the Joint Technology Committee in recruiting courts for test implementations and interoperability testing.

Tom Clarke asked that John Greacen delete the current KAVI ballot and create a new one so that TC members not on the conference call will be aware of the change in focus of the Summary and Introduction.

The Introduction will be prepared for final review and approval at the TC’s next face to face meeting in Las Vegas on December 8 and 9. This will be timely for the Joint Technology Committee public review process, which will commence after the Committee approves the specification as a proposed standard., the first week in December.

Dr. Leff noted that he was very pleased with the document Terrie and Roger prepared. He said it was above average for documents of this type. As an implementer, he would like to have an additional document that would refer implementers to the sources for the various standards and other materials on which ECF 3.0 relies. Terrie reported that the Forum for the Advancement of Court Technology had discussed the need for such a document but had not yet produced one.

Web Services Messaging Profile

Scott Came provided the following comments:

Line 273:  The WS-I Basic Profile requires that the receiver of a message not rely on the SOAPAction header for processing of the message.  Given that, I wonder why we are requiring that it be used.  From an implementer's point of view, SOAPAction is generally ignored and of little value, since per WS-I BP all information vital to processing has to be included in the SOAP Body anyway.  I recommend we rewrite section 2.5 so that the WS MP relies only on http request/response to satisfy this profile requirement.

(Similar comment applies to lines 280-281).

Line 283: I find this section confusing.  The purpose of this profile requirement is to make sure profiles have a way of delimiting between the message and attachments, and between attachments.  All we need to do here is refer to WS-I BP and WS-I Attachments profile, which in turn rely on SOAP 1.1 and SOAP with Attachments.  Those specifications require MIME boundaries between the message and attachments, and between individual attachments.  I recommend that this section be rewritten per the above to clarify it.

Don Bergeron supported Scott’s comments. Jim agreed to incorporate them. He will get in touch with Scott to obtain precise language to use in the messaging profile.

There being no other comments, Jim announced that the Web Services Messaging Profile is final, subject to ratification by TC voting members on the KAVI ballot.

Portable Media Messaging Profile

Jim reported that he and John Greacen had found the development of this profile quite challenging. It has emerged as a very different mechanism from the way in which it had been discussed by the TC in past meetings. The profile that has been produced does not stand on its own. It specifically states that a court cannot implement ECF 3.0 merely using this profile. It relies on the use of another, electronic profile for all of its address structure. Its use is limited to instances in which communications fail or in which a filer wishes to file a document so large that transmission over the Internet is problematic.

The synchronous response is a printout of the electronic response message handed to the filer by a court clerk. The asynchronous response and queries are not supported by the portable messaging profile.

Don Bergeron stated that the profile is nonetheless useful. It provides implementers with a specific response to questions in RFPs about disaster recovery scenarios and capabilities. He also thinks that it may have additional future utility.

Jim noted that the identifier needs to be changed to be consistent with other artifacts.

There being no other comments on the profile, Jim announced that it is final, subject to ratification by TC voting members on the KAVI ballot.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download