[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Multiple Document Versions Option 4
Roger -- Everyone is in agreement with your observations, with the exception that some courts file proposed orders in their CMS. Whether to do that will be optional with the court. We are including a tag in the rendition metadata for designating one of the filings as the "official" document. -----Original Message----- From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:14 AM To: Rex McElrath; legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Multiple Document Versions Option 4 Sorry I couldn't be in San Diego and couldn't participate in yesterday's call. I do plan to be on the call today. Regarding multiple versions, I have one concern which I think is addressed, but I want to be sure. Rex's document included language that talks about the primary document or format of which the multiple versions are "exact copies" (in terms of content). He discussed that first document as the "original" when it comes to e-filing. I'm not sure I remember the business cases for multiple formats, but I do want to stress some points which might then require changes or a notation in the specification. It appears to me that all of the "alternate format" documents have temporary uses, so, unlike the "original" (usually, a PDF), they do not need to be retained for as long as the case record is retained. Courts of limited jurisdiction may have relatively short periods for retaining case records; courts of general jurisdiction typically are required to keep court case files "indefinitely" (interpreted as meaning "forever"). Even with reduced costs for storage space, we would NOT want to keep the alternate versions in the DMS, would we? If the document is for display purposes only, then it might need to be retained, but there should be something to indicate the relationship between it and the "original" and to prove they are "in sync." * There can be only one "original" document. (As the saying goes, "The person with two watches never knows what time it is!") That a given document is "the original" needs to be clearly indicated if a formality of e-filing the document is involved in a transaction. The Clerk has the duty to receive and preserve the "original" filed document as it was filed; safeguarding it against unauthorized changes is also a Clerk's duty. (Is there a Clerk's obligation to preserve the alternate formats against change? Does the Clerk need to attest that the alternate formats match the "original?" How would that be done?) * The alternate format document, it seems to me, could be used for display purposes or could be used by the judge or someone as a draft or template. In our Clerk's Office, we do not allow the filing--in the Clerk's Office--of unsigned proposed court orders. They are routed separately to the judge. If the alternate format document is intended for a purpose outside the e-filing and DMS systems, that would be fine, but it should NOT be accepted by the Clerk as part of the "official case record." * It seems to me that the alternate format documents should be scheduled for automatic destruction, since they are not the "original" documents. They might be set to "expire" after a set period of time (or "X days following case completion," for example). My point is that even though they may remain "exact copies" in terms of content (words, layout, pictures, other human readable/observable features) they are not "original" documents for the official case record (DMS). I'd appreciate any corrections regarding the above, to give me a clearer understanding of this multiple versions action. Roger Winters Program and Project Manager and Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator King County Department of Judicial Administration 516 Third Ave. E-609 MS:KCC-JA-0609 Seattle, WA 98104 V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906 roger.winters@metrokc.gov -----Original Message----- From: Rex McElrath [mailto:mcelratr@gaaoc.us] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:30 AM To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Multiple Document Versions Option 4 Hi, Thank you for sending out the domain model with the new proposal. I believe is similar to the proposal generated from Shane's suggestions at the last Face To Face in Vegas (attached). On the working group call where this was discussed, the proposal with a document within a document structure wasn't accepted and this was the reason for resubmitting the previous proposal. I don't have my notes from the call with me, but I believe the reason it wasn't accepted was due to the confusion with metadata and the need for overlapping structures within the same Document structure. Either way that the group decides, a document within a document or additional tags to relate two separate documents is fine with me. Thanks, Rex -----Original Message----- From: Cabral, James E. [mailto:JCabral@mtgmc.com] Sent: Thu 4/19/2007 3:03 AM To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Multiple Document Versions Option 4 In the TC meeting today, Gary Graham suggested a fourth option for supporting multiple document versions/renditions in ECF 3.1. Here is a possible domain model for that option which would separate out some elements from the current DocumentMetadata structure into a new DocumentRenditionMetadata structure. Note that the DocumentSignature would need to be associated with the rendition since it may be based on the content (e.g. XMLsignatures). Also note the addition of an officialVersionIndicator to the DocumentRenditionMetadata structure. <<ECF 3.1 Multiple Document Versions Option4.zargo>> <<ECF 3.1 Multiple Document Versions Option4.gif>> Jim Cabral James E. Cabral Jr. MTG Management Consultants, L.L.C. 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3010 Seattle, WA 98101-3292 (206) 442-5010 www.mtgmc.com <file://www.mtgmc.com> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. ----------------------------------------- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the entity or individual(s) to whom they are addressed and not for reliance upon by unintended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail and any files transmitted are strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please delete the entire email and immediately notify us by email to the sender or by telephone to the AOC main office number, (404) 656-5171. Thank you.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]