I sent this response directly to Rolly, but perhaps others may be interested
in the message.
> Rolly,
>
> The OXCI document refers to the document "Architecture Models, Business
> decisions, and Interoperability Issues"
> http://www.tybera.com/E-Filing%20Architecture%20Models%20and%20Issues.htm
.
> OXCI indicates that who ever implements OXCI needs to support all models
> defined in this document. That being the case, if you look at the last
two
> diagrams, (or the one I have included here) what those diagrams are saying
> is that an attorney can install the exact same software the court
installs,
> that is, an EFSP and an EFM. Therefor if two attorneys install this
> software, they can then file, or serve documents onto each other. In
> addition, an attorney's client can use the EFSP provided by the attorney
so
> that the clients can file documents to the attorney. Then, if
corporations
> install the software, they can begin to exchange, file, serve... documents
> onto each other. In reality, this model begins to create a spiders web of
> installations with a complex method of managing how multiple EFM
> installations control which EFSP installations can submit information to
> each other, or even more specifically, what types of filings each
authorized
> EFSP can submit. to the various EFMs.. It suggests that when a Judge
> creates a ruling, they can initiate a filing back to the participating
> attorneys.
(Two way automation)
Although the diagram represents this
> behavior, these concepts were not within the initial scope of original
> document. The original document was intended to demonstrate to the TC
that
> there are multiple designs by which a court could interact with attorneys.
>
> The model that is shown in the attached diagram is the architecture that
is
> being implemented in Utah Court Filing 1.1 implementation. There are
> attorneys and other state agencies preparing to install both an EFSP and
EFM
> at their locations. However, it is my opinion that in order to sustain a
> system that officially allows attorneys to serve each other it will become
> the responsibility of the Bar Association to provide a registry for the
> attorneys to indicate which attorneys support this method of service. In
> the same fashion, it is the responsibility of the Bar Association to
publish
> the official mailing address to serve documents on another attorney, or in
> the case of Corporations, it will be the responsibility of the Department
of
> Commerce to maintain a registry of companies who support the interface to
be
> served electronically since the DOC licenses and maintains a registry of
> companies and official addresses.
>
> I really don't believe OXCI intended to extend their design this far, but
> that is the intent of the diagram.
>
> Dallas
