Jim,
Thank you for the valuable edits to the draft ECF v.1 Committee Note.
Upon review, I found the four following minor corrections that should be made:
1. Pg. 16 of 41 (section 3.12.1), the words “review filing request” were replaced with “RFR”. The proper acronym per section 1.2.2 is “RvFR”.
Originally:
So, if the ECF v4.01
review filing request was composed as recommended in ECF v4.01, i.e., consisting of a single
CoreFilingMessage and an optional
PaymentMessage, then theoretically, this review filing request could be understood by an ECF v4.1 ReviewFiling operation.
As revised:
So, if the [ECF-v4.01]
RFR was composed as recommended in [ECF-v4.01] , i.e., consisting of a single
CoreFilingMessage and an optional
PaymentMessage, then theoretically, this review filing request could be understood by an
[ECF-v4.1] ReviewFiling operation.
2. The acronym “RFR” which refers to RecordFilingRequest was inadvertently left out of the Acronyms and Abbreviations table and should be added. This acronym appears (appropriately) on pgs. 13, 14, & 16 of
41.
3. Missing left-square-bracket in 3.4.2 CourtPolicyResponseMessage for the [ECF-WS-SIP-v4.1] reference:
4. Typo – 8.2.1 Providing Clerk Review and Other Results, 9th paragraph – an extra ‘e’ in ‘multi-episode’:
Gay Graham
From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of James Cabral
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 10:10 PM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Groups - ECF 4.1 Implementation Guide uploaded
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open
attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Submitter's message
Revisions throughout to add references and conform to OASIS best practices. Moved example schema and WSDLs in Appendix D to separate files.
-- Mr. James Cabral
|
Document Name:
ECF 4.1 Implementation Guide
Description
Submitter: Mr. James Cabral |