Committee Note revisions

Jim,

At the Phoenix f2f we addressed the Committee Note for ECF v4.1.

There were two places in the Committee Note draft (i.e., 4.6 Implementation Namespace & 4.7 Payment Maximum Amount) where TC input and clarification was requested.

Following discussion, it was agreed to provide the requested clarification.

I have drafted the following revisions:

4.6 Implementation Namespace

Remove the yellow highlighted text.

In its place, add:

Although implementations are free to continue the [ECF-v4.01] practice of providing a single implementation specific namespace, the TC recommends defining up to four implementation specific namespaces, one namespace for each MDE.

In the actual Committee Note documentation, the above text should be black.

4.7 Payment Actual Amount

Remove:

Perhaps the specification statement is intended to suggest that courts/implementations are free to impose the largest allowed fee(s).

Replace with:

The TC has clarified that the element cbc:PaidAmount may be used to indicate a maximum amount that may be charged for the submission rather than an amount actually paid. Courts should consider using Human Readable Court Policy to clarify how cbc:PaidAmount is used.

Again, in the actual Committee Note document, the above replacement text should be black.

Also remove the yellow highlighted text.

At the F2F meeting, I had also noted that I had found a few other minor corrections that are needed. These are listed below:

A. Section 3.4.3 RequireAsynchronousResponseIndicator

In the second paragraph, the operation name NotifyDocketingComplete is in Courier New font and should instead be in Liberation Sans font since this is an operation name and not an XML element or attribute name.

B. Section 3.8.2.1 Providing Clerk Review and Other Results,

the section reference to “3.3.2.1 Multi-Episode Clerk Review with Multiple CoreFilingMessages” needs to be updated. The correct section number is 4.3.1.1 in the current draft.

C. Section D.3 Rationale

Closing right brace is absent on [ECF-WS-SIP-v4.1 reference.

D. D.4 Considerations

Review the edit in the fourth paragraph:

(e.g., may be able to be named as ‘wrappers.xsd’ and not be named differently, such as ‘[ECF-v4.01] Wrappers.xsd’).

Was it your intent to provide an example file name such as ‘ECF-v4.01-Wrappers.xsd’?

E. Remove the entire second paragraph in section D.4 Considerations, that begins with “However, the [ECF-v4.01] specification, in Section 5.2 “Service Interaction Profile Approval and Revision Process” … as a committee note.”

Thanks

Gary

legalxml-courtfiling message