|
From Gary Graham w/ responses from Jim Cabral:
Thank you for the clarification; as a result, I will want to amend the Message examples I provided previoulsy.
I am now focusing on the Ploicy messages and have a few additional questions regarding Policy.
Policy – The ECF 3.01 specification, section 2.4.4 ‘Court Specific Code Lists’, says a “court SHOULD provide values for each of the following code lists…” Included in the list of code lists is <ErrorCode>. I presume this would be used to by the Filing Review MDE to inform the Filing Assembly MDE of the Error Codes that it may expect to receive, and include a textual description for each code. I am not aware of any standard for these codes other than ‘zero’ (0) which means no error. I further presume that these <ErrorCode>s would be communicated to the Filing Review MDE in the CourtPolicyResponseMessage. However, the XML does not appear to contain elements for returning the <ErrorCode> list (there are elements to communicate whether or not an error occurred in the GetPolicy operation). Furthermore, I cannot find any XSD for the <ErrorCode> list. Are there standard codes? Is there an XSD for Error Codes? Where in the message do these codes go? <CourtExtension>? Or <CoreCodeList>? What should the value be for <ElementName> within <CoreCodeList>? (in the XML Example, for Case Type, the value is ‘common:CaseTypeCode’ – in the common folder I find an ECF-3.0-CaseType.xsd, but not a CaseTypeCode.xsd) How is Error Severity communicated?
All messages (including CourtPolicyResponseMessage) include the Error element which includes ErrorCode and ErrorText elements. The ErrorCode element is based on PolicyDefinedCodeTextType which indicates that the court should define the code list in Court Policy. The definition for ErrorCode says that 0 is reserved for “no error” but this is not enforced in schema. There is no built-in mechanism in ECF for communicating error severity but, if a court needed it, the court could associate certain severity levels with certain codes (e.g. errors 100-200 are minor, error 200-300 are severe, etc.)
Or, is there no need to send a full Error Code set from the Filing Review MDE to the Filing Assembly MDE because only the ‘current’ error(s) (if any, else 0 – No Error) is returned, and the Filing Assembly MDE can just display the returned DisplayText to the user?
Right – there is no need to send a full Error Code set since it is defined in Court Policy.
The ECF-3.0-CourtPolicyResponseMessage.xsd permits zero to unlimited message:Error elements. When the called operation returns multiple error codes, is there a standard or a convention on how this should be done? (i.e. in the order the errors occurred, or most significant to least significant, etc.)
There is no current standard or convention for this. Is it important enough that we need to add one?
How many Revision Numbers?
ECF 3.01 states: “The court MUST have only one active, authoritative version of its human-readable, development-time, and run-time policies at a given time.” The term “only one” suggests that the combined set of Human-readable policy and Machine-readable policy is considered a single policy. However, ECF 3.01 also states: “The court’s human-readable and machine-readable court policies MUST both have a version numbering method associated with them.” This seems to suggest two separate version numbers as “both” “MUST” “have a version numbering method”; not “both MUST have a single version numbering …”. However, the ECF-3.0-CourtPolicyResponseMessage.xsd only contains one Policy version element (i.e. policyresponse:PolicyVersionID). If there are two version numbers, which (Human or Machine-Readable) goes into policyresponse:PolicyVersionID, and where does the other go?
The human-readable and machine-readable policies are versioned separately. The CourtPolicyResponseMessage only returns the machine-readable version and therefore, only includes one Policy version number. We do not define a structure for human-readable policies but it must include the version somewhere in the human-readable policy.
Also note that the XSD definition for policyresponse:PolicyVersionID may be incorrect. It states that it’s “up to the court to define the format for this” (the version number); however, it appears that ECF 3.01 section 2.4 defines the format of version as MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH (however, it’s specified as a SHOULD comply, not a MUST).
I think this is ok. We say the court MUST define a format it and suggest a recommended format but don’t require them to use it.
|