<p> OASIS LegalXML Electronic Court Filing (ECF) Technical Committee (TC)</p><p>Conference Call Agenda</p><p>March 14, 2017 11am –noon EST / 4pm – 5pm UTC</p><p> https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/696322069</p><p> United States: +1 (571) 317-3122, Access Code: 696-322-069</p><p> Old Business</p><p>1. Review/approval of previous meeting minutes</p><p>2. Steering Committee Updates</p><p> a. Please review LegalRuleML 1.0 Public Review 1 – feedback due March 14, 2017</p><p> http://docs.oasis-open.org/legalruleml/legalruleml-core-spec/v1.0/csprd01/legalruleml- core-spec-v1.0-csprd01.zip</p><p>3. Outreach</p><p> a. CTC 2017 presentation submitted: “Next Generation Electronic Court Filing” – need court and solution provider co-presenters</p><p>John Chatz volunteered – court SME turned solution provider</p><p> b. Participation in Court Industry Summit (April 19-21, Princeton, NJ) and Court Hack (April 22-23, New Brunswick, NJ)</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <<service> or <<process> MDE Service Port (provided interface) MDE Binding (e.g. SOAP, HTTPClass GET/POST) <<implementationClass>> MDE PortType Class <<Interface>> Operation Operation Operation (Request/Response/Callback) (Input/Output) Message Parameter Message (document/literal wrappers) (Request/Response/Callback) Type Class <<Type>> Message</p><p>Decision: Keep our terminology, but include a mapping in our documentation.</p><p>5. Should each MDE have its own WSDL? Decision: Yes, have a separate WSDL for each MDE.</p><p>6. Rename MDE to Service, Port or Component? Decision: Keep our terminology, but include a mapping in our documentation.</p><p>7. Use Message to refer to WSDL Document/Literal Wrapper? Decision: Keep our terminology, but include a mapping in our documentation.</p><p>8. Use Request/Response and Callback to refer to WSDL types? Decision: Keep our terminology, but include a mapping in our documentation.</p><p>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.</p><p>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)</p><p>11. Deprecate embedding base64 encoded documents in XML? Decision: MIME attachments is the recommended approach, but leave support for embedded base64.</p><p> c.ii. #67 - Identify missing Augmentation (extension) Points</p><p> c.ii.1. Each message has its own extension point c.ii.2. Extension points are also provided for certain objects (see specification)</p><p>Decision: No feedback so far, therefore assumption is that we have all needs addressed.</p><p> d. New Features</p><p> d.i. #65 - Better support for confidentiality/security</p><p> d.i.1. Define a court specific code list in Court Policy</p><p> d.i.2. Philip Baughman will recommend a baseline code list</p><p>Decision: Unsecured, Restricted, Secured. Jim Cabral has updated the specification to include these. </p><p> d.ii. #62 – Revisit solutions/approaches for e-signatures</p><p> d.ii.1. We haven’t updated them in 10 years. Should we update them now?</p><p> d.iii. #48 - Consider Criminal Case Updates</p><p> d.iii.1. Jim Harris will compare to Global Charging Service SSP</p><p>Action Item: Barb and Jim Harris to look at criminal mappings.</p><p>5. ECF 5.0 Web Services SIP</p><p> a. Updated the specification to the latest OASIS template. b. #5 - Format Web Services SIP as an SSP</p><p> c. #58 - New MQ SIP</p><p> d. Which WS framework to use? We will tackle this next time.</p><p>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</p><p>6. Action Items</p><p> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml- courtfiling/members/action_items.php</p><p> New Business</p><p>7. Schedule</p><p>Next TC Conference Call: April 11, 2017 11am –noon EST / 4pm – 5pm UTC</p><p>Next TC Face-To-Face Meeting: Apr 21 – New Brunswick, NJ (with CourtHack 2017)?</p>