I am not going to explain "why" I believe this is a good idea or suggest "how" a library might obtain the resources to do this. I merely want to propose a basic model.
Like all projects, the key decision makers must be gathered together to discuss the realistic possibility of becoming an electronic publisher. In my view, the key players in a state court system are:
I would hope that most courts have a committee of some sort, that could be used as a forum to "draw in" the decision makers.
The next and perhaps most difficult step, is to get everyone to agree that electronic publication of decisions is a good idea. Once again, I will not discuss this aspect of the project. NOTE: When I use the term "Library" (below), I mean Law School Library OR State Law Library.
(1) OVERVIEW: That the project create a single central server at a representative Law School or Library, separate from the Court System, but directed by the Courts.
This design would minimize security concerns associated with placing the server physically within the existing court network. Hopefully, a previously created FTP server at the Law School or Library would be used for this purpose. Listserv (Internet discussion group software) would also be loaded on this server to provide for notification.
Specifically, on a Linux (UNIX) operating system running on a Pentium 120, with 64 meg memory, 4 gig hard disk, you would need:
(2) That a "technical" committee with representatives from each partner oversee the system server and be responsible for issues such as security and software search engine design. The Law School or Library actually hosting the server would manage the daily activities of the server.
(3) That the Court would direct all activities and reserve the right to send a technical representative to assist or direct the technical committee at any time.
(4) That the Court would reserve the right to terminate the program at any time and for any reason.
(5) That the Law School or Library issue accounts on the Server to any commercial provider or other user that the Court indicates should have access to the data.
(6) That the data would be backed up daily to an alternate server. The Law School would be responsible for loading the data from the FTP site to the server hosting the search engine. In reality, this could be the same server.
(7) That the data and system design would generally be operating system and hardware independent. This would ensure that the system could be migrated from a Law School server, to an alternate server in the event that the Court decides to install its own server at an alternate site.
(8) That all sites (partners) would be free to design their own search engine to provide access to the data and to load the data locally on their own site. Additionally, if any of the partners desire, the site hosting the server, could design a search engine (on-site) that would be a joint venture giving all partners equal credit.
(9) Changes or updates to the data would only be made on the central server FTP site. Partners would be responsible for updating their own site. Changes would be announced on the listserv discussion group.
(10) OPTION 1: The Law School or Library would supply blank disks to the Court. Data would be copied to the disks. The disks would be 1) picked up or 2) mailed to the Law School.
(11) OPTION 2: The Law School or Library would supply dial-in access to the FTP server at the Law School from a stand-alone workstation (isolated from the Court network for security reasons). The Law School would individually train any staff member or members, designated by the Court, on how to transfer the data.
(12) OPTION 3: Staff from the Court would transfer data through an existing Internet account at the Court. The Law School or Library would individually train any staff members designated by the Court, on how to transfer the data.
(13) The Law School or Library would load the data on to the secure search-engine server within 8 hours of receiving the data.
(14) The Court would decide when to release the data. Any changes would be faxed (highlighted) to the Law School or Library which would then 1) directly edit the opinion or 2) overwrite the old file by transferring the data.
(15) The Law School would immediately announce (on a closed listserv) that the data has been loaded. The data would be available through a search engine designed by the Law School or Library within 12 hours of receipt. At the discretion of the Court, the site would also design an open listserv to disseminate data to outside users approved by the Court.
(16) All partners could issue a disclaimer concerning timeliness and accuracy of data on Internet at their respective sites.
(17) Any search engine designed by the Law School or Library
would provide full text search capability, as well as access through
docket number and case name. WEB access would be made available
through the Courts web page, as well as any partner web pages.