Re: [Openefm-development] Re: OpenEFM question

[Jason V. C. <ja...@va...>]

Quoth Jeremiah Jahn, on Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:49:02 -0600:

> > 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. That would seem out of scope.
> In other words you leave that up to the CMS(adapter)?

Not necessarily.  Internally, if we see no case number, we assume an
initial filing.  When it is accepted and sent on to the CMS, we may need
to construct a different XML document depending on this.  The 2GEFS
interface is not defined in terms of filings, but cases; so we have to
send an explicit new-case message, for initial filings only.

Now, previous version of OpenEFM, I've said, send a single filing
package for both initial and "subsequent" filings, so in that case, the
CMSAdapter gets an LxmlFiling object at the CMS, and it was free to do
whatever it had to with that, add a case, parties, documents, in
whatever order.  Because 2GEFS is breaking this one "filing" operation
into several CMS-level operations, we may have to expand our CMSAdapter
interface, specify it more.

> 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

Good info', stuff to which I have little access, unfortunately. 
Hopefully this is moot, though, and adding litigants after the fact will
never become a requirement.  (Never say never, right?)  To me it just
seems like a function of the CMS, altogether out of the scope of an EFM.
 But it ain't up to me.  ;)

> 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.

Mr. Beard, can you address this?

> > 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.

See, this is good discussion, because I'm not even aware of any such
requirement.  As far as OpenEFM is concerned, party definitions that
come in with a filing are not strongly coupled with any of its
documents.  I didn't even know there was a corresponding document for a
party.  So we just add all the parties and all the documents, and if the
CMS doesn't complain, we call it good.  Otherwise stated, all
data-validity (not including XML validation) checks are performed
visually by the clerk responsible for accepting or rejecting the filing
at the EFM.

--Jason Van Cleve
counterclaim

--
I knit little sweaters for my pet peeves.