OASIS Legalxml Electronic Court Filing (ECF) Technical Committee (TC)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing (ECF) Technical Committee (TC)
Conference Call Agenda
March 14, 2017 11am –noon EST / 4pm – 5pm UTC
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/696322069
United States: +1 (571) 317-3122, Access Code: 696-322-069
Old Business
1. Review/approval of previous meeting minutes
2. Steering Committee Updates
a. Please review LegalRuleML 1.0 Public Review 1 – feedback due March 14, 2017
http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalruleml/legalruleml-core-spec/v1.0/csprd01/legalruleml- core-spec-v1.0-csprd01.zip
3. Outreach
a. CTC 2017 presentation submitted: “Next Generation Electronic Court Filing” – need court and solution provider co-presenters
John Chatz volunteered – court SME turned solution provider
b. Participation in Court Industry Summit (April 19-21, Princeton, NJ) and Court Hack (April 22-23, New Brunswick, NJ)
Decision: Assuming no other inputs, there will be no face to face meeting in April due to lack of TC member plans to attend CIS and/or CourtHack. However, we do plan to have a face to face at CTC in September.
4. ECF 5.0 Core Specification a. Release Schedule a.i. Planning public review in Q1 2017. a.ii. Targeting first release in Summer 2017. b. Current: Working Draft 06, UML model, NIEM mapping, schemas, instances b.i. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml- courtfiling/download.php/60235/ecf-v5.0-wd06.zip b.ii. Updated the specification to the latest OASIS template and business rules. c. NIEM 3.2 mapping and schemas: c.i. Terminology question - Should we align ECF Terminology with WSDL and UML terms? ECF WSDL UML User (e.g. Filer, Clerk) Actor or Entity Use Case MDE Definitions Component <
Decision: Keep our terminology, but include a mapping in our documentation.
5. Should each MDE have its own WSDL? Decision: Yes, have a separate WSDL for each MDE.
6. Rename MDE to Service, Port or Component? Decision: Keep our terminology, but include a mapping in our documentation.
7. Use Message to refer to WSDL Document/Literal Wrapper? Decision: Keep our terminology, but include a mapping in our documentation.
8. Use Request/Response and Callback to refer to WSDL types? Decision: Keep our terminology, but include a mapping in our documentation.
9. ECF4 included fingerprints, palm prints, and DNA for criminal defendants. Should we replace all of those with just a transaction control number (e.g. j:RapSheetTransactionControlIdentification)? Action Item: Arizona to follow-up with their SME.
10. See CaseOfficialRoleCode.gc (attorneys) and CaseParticipantRoleCode.gc (other persons and organizations). Should we have separate code lists for non-attorney person and organization participants? Action Item: Jim Cabral to follow-up based upon today’s discussions (person, organization, property, judge, attorney)
11. Deprecate embedding base64 encoded documents in XML? Decision: MIME attachments is the recommended approach, but leave support for embedded base64.
c.ii. #67 - Identify missing Augmentation (extension) Points
c.ii.1. Each message has its own extension point c.ii.2. Extension points are also provided for certain objects (see specification)
Decision: No feedback so far, therefore assumption is that we have all needs addressed.
d. New Features
d.i. #65 - Better support for confidentiality/security
d.i.1. Define a court specific code list in Court Policy
d.i.2. Philip Baughman will recommend a baseline code list
Decision: Unsecured, Restricted, Secured. Jim Cabral has updated the specification to include these.
d.ii. #62 – Revisit solutions/approaches for e-signatures
d.ii.1. We haven’t updated them in 10 years. Should we update them now?
d.iii. #48 - Consider Criminal Case Updates
d.iii.1. Jim Harris will compare to Global Charging Service SSP
Action Item: Barb and Jim Harris to look at criminal mappings.
5. ECF 5.0 Web Services SIP
a. Updated the specification to the latest OASIS template. b. #5 - Format Web Services SIP as an SSP
c. #58 - New MQ SIP
d. Which WS framework to use? We will tackle this next time.
Profile Compatible with Last Link updated WS-I Basic SOAP 1.1 4/10/2006 http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile- Profile 1.1 1.1.html WS-I Basic SOAP 1.1 11/9/2010 http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.2-2010- Profile 1.2 11-09.html WS-I Basic SOAP 1.2 11/9/2010 http://ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-2.0-2010- Profile 2.0 11-09.html WS-I Basic WS-I Basic Profile 1.0/1.1, 3/30/2007 http://www.ws- Security WS-Security 1.0 i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.0.html Profile 1.0 WS-I Basic WS-I Basic Profile 1.0/1.1, 1/24/2010 http://www.ws- Security WS-Security 1.1 i.org/Profiles/BasicSecurityProfile-1.1.html Profile 1.1 WS-I Reliable SOAP 1.1, WS-Security 1.1, 11/9/2010 http://www.ws- Secure Profile WS-Reliable Messaging 1.1 i.org/Profiles/ReliableSecureProfile-1.0-2010-11- 1.0 09.html#SOAPVersion Global Web SOAP 1.1, WS-I, WS-* and 8/1/2007 https://it.ojp.gov/process_links.jsp?link_id=5800 Services SIP WS-I Basic Profile 1.1, WS-I 1.1 Basic Security Profile 1.0, ECF 4.0 WS-SIP Global Web SOAP 1.1, WS-I, WS-* and 5/1/2011 https://it.ojp.gov/GIST/56/Global-Reference- Services SIP WS-I Basic Profile 1.1, WS-I Architecture--GRA--Web-Services-Service- 1.3 Basic Security Profile 1.0 Interaction-Profile-Version-1-3 Global SOAP 1.1, WS-I, WS-*, 10/1/2012 https://it.ojp.gov/GIST/85/Global-Reference- Reliable SAML 2.0, GFIPM, WS-I Architecture--GRA--Reliable-Secure-Web- Secure Web Basic Profile 1.2, and (to Services-Service-Interaction-Profile Services SIP the extent practical) the 1.2 WS-I Reliable Secure Profile 1.0 , WS-I Basic Security Profile 1.0/1.1
6. Action Items
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml- courtfiling/members/action_items.php
New Business
7. Schedule
Next TC Conference Call: April 11, 2017 11am –noon EST / 4pm – 5pm UTC
Next TC Face-To-Face Meeting: Apr 21 – New Brunswick, NJ (with CourtHack 2017)?