All,
I haven’t seen an agenda either, so I offer the following as the proposed agenda.
Regards,
Jim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Establish Meeting Ground Rules. Example:
1. Be respectful of your peers (be on time, no name calling, etc.)
2. Everyone participates
3. No disruptive side-bar conversations
4. Make fact-based decisions (SMART)
5. Commit to closing this topic on a specific schedule
6. The only dumb questions are the ones that aren’t asked
7. Have fun!
General Overview of the Issue. Example:
1. Bounded
a. Pros
i. Higher degree of predictable interoperability
ii. Highly deterministic (one-size-fits-all)
iii. Other
b. Cons
i. Potentially limits scalable solutions
ii. Required extensions break ECF compliance
iii. Other
2. Unbounded
a. Pros
i. Enables scalable solutions (upward/downward)
ii. Adaptable to different business needs
iii. The risk of having to extend the specification is mitigated, which ensures ECF compliance
iv. Other
b. Cons
i. Not deterministic
ii. Requires TC to create reference models to aid implementers
iii. Other
General Conversation. Example:
1. Who has purchased or created, maintained, or managed a court CMS?
2. Of those who have purchased or written, maintained, or managed a court CMS, who can explain the differences e-filing systems must address for Municipal/Justice of the Peace, Superior/District, and Appellate courts?
3. From an e-filing perspective, are the Filing Assembly tasks/processes the same for each of the above court types?
4. From a court CMS perspective, what does a highly constrained ECF specification have on an organization’s ability to adapt to different and unknowable business needs?
5. What is Bob Roper’s 2011 Capability Maturity Model (presented eCourts 2012 conference) and how does it pertain to e-filing in terms of Organizational Capabilities? (see attached)
6. Which CMM model is ECF targeting, one, more than one, all?
7. Who is the customer of an e-filing system, the litigants, vendors, courts, or someone else?
8. Other
Suggested Next Steps
1. Define the purpose and strategic intent of the ECF specification
2. Establish element cardinality-setting rules, e.g., if there is no compelling justification to constrain an element, leave it unbounded
3. Identify the approach(es) to close the cardinality issue
a. Evaluate each and every element and propose/negotiate their corresponding cardinality
b. Revert to ECF 4.0 cardinality, then ‘tighten down’ where needed
c. Constrain all elements, then propose/negotiate which ones should be left unbounded
d. Do nothing, i.e., adopt 4.01 cardinality
4. Other
From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of James E Cabral
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 7:36 AM
To: Eric Eastman <eric@greenfiling.com>
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - ECF5-NIEM3.1-mapping.xlsx uploaded
Eric,
Yes, the ECF 4 cardinality column actually reflects ECF 4.01.
I’ll look into the issue with the definitions.
I haven’t seen an agenda for today’s meeting.
__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532
From: Eric Eastman
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:31 AM
To: James E Cabral
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - ECF5-NIEM3.1-mapping.xlsx uploaded
Jim,
To clarify the "ECF4 Constraints" column referrers to to ECF 4.0.1 which is substantially different from ECF 4. Is that correct?
It looks like the "Source Definition" column didn't get sorted with the rest of the sheet. I doubt "j:Offense/nc:ActivityLocation" is where I should put "A person related to another person in this case" as line 3 would have me believe. I could help fix this if needed.
Do we have an agenda yet for this meeting?
It seems like we would all like a standard that is so flexible that any court can adopt it with minimal effort but is also so carefully constrained that those courts and share information easily and take advantage of common software and services. This discussion is one place where the two halves of that sentence collide and tradeoffs need to be made. My goal is for us to come to a mutual understanding of what the tradeoffs are, to establish an agreed baseline and to have a process, as we refine ECF5 and beyond, to propose and review adjustments to that baseline.
Thanks,
Eric
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:16 AM, James E Cabral <jec@mtgmc.com> wrote:
For the cardinality discussion this afternoon, see the “ECF 5 mapping” tab of this spreadsheet. Yellow highlighting indicates ECF extensions to NIEM. Red text indicates changes from ECF 4. ECF 5 cardinalities default to ECF 4 cardinalities and will be updated based on the discussion at today’s meeting.
__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532
From: James Cabral
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 5:12 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - ECF5-NIEM3.1-mapping.xlsx uploaded
Document Name: ECF5-NIEM3.1-mapping.xlsx
Description
An updated mapping of ECF 5.0 elements to NIEM 3.1 for the cardinality
discussion on 11/30/15.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link
Submitter: Mr. James Cabral
Group: OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing TC
Folder: ECF 5.0
Date submitted: 2015-11-30 03:12:26
Revision: 1
--
Eric Dimick Eastman
Green Filing, LLC
Web: www.greenfiling.com
Phone: (801) 448-7268
Cell: (765) 277-4158