Re: [Openefm-development] Re: OpenEFM question

[Jeremiah J. <jer...@go...>]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 10:18 -0800, Jason Van Cleve wrote:
> Quoth Jeremiah Jahn, on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:00:57 -0600:
>=20
> > Not sure if I like this or not. How exactly do you derive the intent
> > of the filing. Our assumption has always been the following. No Case
> > number, they must want a new case so our submitCase method is called.
>=20
> This is also our criterion for a new vs.  existing case.  Normally,
> party information need only be sent with the initial filing, and we have
> no plans for the EFM to add or update party data to existing cases.=20
> That would seem out of scope.
In other words you leave that up to the CMS(adapter)?

>=20
> > All Documents get pushed through our submitDocument method. Finally if
> > a party description is included in the data, the cms data is compared
> > and if any differences are found then our submitLitigant/Attorney
> > method is called. Does this sound correct to you or is there a better
> > way of handling LegalXML. Or is 2GEFS a better place to start?
>=20
> I'm not sure how the word "correct" applies here.  Technically, I think
> all these approaches would work.  The real question is, how do most
> court systems need it to work, and that is not a question for me, for I
> am not of the legal industry.  I was at the E-Courts conference last
> December, and from what I saw, this analysis just hasn't been done:=20
> there is no consensus.
Being in the Legal industry, The quote from our clients is that you
can't add a party to a case unless you submit with it a "motion to amend
complaint." This can also be done in court on the fly, but that is
obviously not an e-filing problem. I guess that would remove the idea of
dynamically adding litigants to a case. FYI
>=20
> > :) okay let me try and add some coherency to it...I was under the
> > assumption that the OpenEFM API was the previously mentioned four
>=20
> There really is no OpenEFM API, in fact.  OpenEFM is designed to support
> any format it needs to support, and it has always been based on one
> external interface or another.  We have a CMS API that works with our
> transceivers, but that is not the interface between the EFM and the CMS.
>  This may be confusing.
I'm just trying to boil down for our competitors/detractors what kind of
API they will be able to use with us. Since y'all seem to be the biggest
open source player in the field, I'd like to be able to say "If we don't
use OpenEFM, then we will at least adhere to their API." Which brings me
to another question. Who else is out their in the open source EFM world
worth exploring. You all make the most noise, So I've been hoping to
ride on your coattails a little, when dealing with the BIG BOYS.
>=20
> > methods. Under that assumption I was curious to know whether or not if
> > someone used the addParty method would the XML not only containing the
> > meta data to describe the new party, but also the binary data of the
> > document adding the party to a case.=20
>=20
> What is meant by "if someone used the addParty method", exactly?  The
> only "addParty method" in our system currently is the 2GEFS CMS API call
> I've begun implementing.  The XML format for that is already defined
> sans binary data.
Is that actually the way things have to be done. I would think that
since you can't add a party without a matching document the two should
travel together.


>=20
> --Jason Van Cleve
> counterclaim
>=20
>=20
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D6595&alloc_id=3D14396&op=3Dclick
> _______________________________________________
> Openefm-development mailing list
> Ope...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openefm-development
If a President doesn't do it to his wife, he'll do it to his country.