RE: [courtfiling-doc] Marking up narrative text in court documents using the JXDM

["Rolly Chambers" <rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>]

Hi Rex: 

Comments are in brackets below.

Best regards,

Rolly
________________________________________
From: Rex McElrath [mailto:mcelratr@gaaoc.us] 
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:06 AM
To: Chambers, Rolly; courtfiling-doc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [courtfiling-doc] Marking up narrative text in court documents
using the JXDM

Hi Rolly, 
   Thank you for the comments and examples.  I agree with you that this 
is a likely possibility.  This was breached to an extent on the last 
conference call with the discussion about using the structure of: 
ID-Type/Category-Description 
        \_ Qualifier 
to mark up the text of documents.  This is a concept somewhat found in 
GJXDM and to an extent is used more in NIEM.  I have reservations about 
using this concept with GJXDM and this was one of the reasons for using 
the stylesheet for text.  In GJXDM, many of the "DescriptionText" 
elements have specific semantic meanings which are more similar to an 
unstructured use of codes than on allowing for the use of free form 
text.  For example, in the Arizona subpoena example, 
"CourtOrderServiceDescriptionText" is defined as a "description of how a 
court order was delivered" and can be codes or free form text to 
describe the methods used to serve the document, such as personal 
service, tack and mail, or other means.

[RC - If I'm following, you are pointing out that the
"CourtOrderServiceDescriptionText" element in the example XML subpoena
contains the document server's qualification statement, which should not
have been included in light of the JXDM's definition of that element. I
agree with you and I think that part of the narrative text would be better
described by a different JXDM element. However, the remaining text reciting
that the document was served by showing it to the defendant etc. looks to me
like a free form text description of the method used to serve the document.
Do you think this interpretation of the JXDM definition goes too far, that
similar markup errors like this (i.e. erroneously including out of scope
content) are unavoidable using the JXDM, or all the above?] 

<snip/>

  In summary, I agree with the concept and the ideas.  The issues that 
we have run into using this method have been ones of dealing with issues 
with extensions.  There may be extension methods that we haven't learned 
that may be able to correct these, but also changing to NIEM seems to 
alleviate some of the issues due to its structure. 
  Have you run into any issues with extensions or otherwise in marking 
up the Arizona documents? 

[RC - I first tried using the arrest warrant schema from the example warrant
IEP, but its JXDM subset did not include elements for narrative text -- only
data elements. I had to create a different subset for warrants.

I didn't have to create any extension elements for the narrative text
components in the example documents -- the JXDM elements from the subsets I
selected worked okay. However, a subpoena or arrest warrant is a much
simpler form document than the child support order you are working on.

I did have to make some fairly minor adjustments to the narrative text in a
couple of places so that it would better fit the JXDM's "don't change
element sequence" rule. I'm not familiar with NIEM and will look forward to
seeing what you all come up with.]
 
Thanks, 
Rex