Re: [legalxml-comment] RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - StartingPoint?

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

I am not sure where one would find a compendium of technical efforts since there has been an explosion of XML standards and your question seems to extend beyond even XML itself. If I come across such a listing or group of listings, I will make an effort to send them to you in a private email.

What might add another dimension to your work is an identification of the cultural, linguistic and legal commonalities which support the realization of a global (transnational) dispute resolution web. These common features, if properly identified and classified, could help establish a basis for XML standards which, as a practical matter, could also help bring about or accelerate efforts towards transnational dispute resolution. I think such an identification of common factors is related to the question which Rolly Chambers first posed.

I look forward to reviewing your article.

Best regards.

John Messing
Chair, E-Filing Committee
Science and Technology Section
American Bar Association


Chair, eNotary TC
LegalXML-Oasis

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: jkeane <jik@jkeane.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:00:34 -0400

>Ben, thanks for query and interest in solving this data model issue
>globally.
>There is an engaging discussion on the CourtFiling list right now on a
>discrepancy between the use of Actor and Person and the different roles they
>play in any legal proceeding. It turns out Criminal Justice Data Dictionary
>is not using the same terms and approaches it a bit differently.
>
>Just within LegalXML and OASIS space, is there a comparable set of
>relationships in ebXML work?  The central point of my thesis is that we
>should be able to move seamlessly from a legal transaction to dispute
>resolution, whether by ADR, Civil or Criminal process.
>
>Ben, are you in touch with anyone in Singapore who can join the dialogue?
>They certainly have been very active in electronic courts and ADR.
>
>Jim
>
>PS.  I added the ABA ODR list  to this thread. in. What's the nature of the
>ICArbitration yahoo group?
>James I. Keane JKeane.Law.Pro
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Davis [mailto:bdavis@law.txwes.edu]
>Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:40 PM
>To: 'jkeane'; 'Rolly Chambers'; legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org;
>'ICArbitration@yahoogroups.com'
>Cc: Legalxml-Comment (E-mail); LegalXML (Mail) (E-mail)
>Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point?
>This is a very interesting note suggesting cross-overs at this time.  I
>wonder if the technical efforts in Singapore Courts would be relevant to
>this.  I also wonder if anyone is aware of a place where there is a list of
>the various types of technical efforts like these that are or may be going
>on in the four corners of the world.  I am writing an article tentatively
>titled "Connecting Worldwide: The Seamless Dispute Resolution Web" and this
>type of development in various corners of the world is part of what I am
>looking at and thinking about in addition to legal developments.
>
>Best regards,
>Ben Davis
>Benjamin Davis
>Associate Professor
>Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
>1515 Commerce Street
>Fort Worth, Texas 76102
>Tel.: 1 817 212 3915
>Fax: 1 817 212 3965
>E-mail:bdavis@law.txwes.edu
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: jkeane [mailto:jik@jkeane.com]
>  Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:32 AM
>  To: 'Rolly Chambers'; legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
>  Cc: Legalxml-Comment (E-mail); LegalXML (Mail) (E-mail)
>  Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point?
>
>
>  Rolly Chambers (who is now co-chairing the eFiling committee of the ABA
>Science & Technology Section with fellow LegalXML stalwart, John Messing)
>asked if anyone was familiar enough the  OdrXML draft standard 1.0 to
>determine if that work was a good starting place for this proposed OdrXML
>Technical Committee.
>
>  I'm cross posting this response to the general list as we all need to
>become aware of this important effort in Europe. We also need to look at the
>methodology and work product of some XML devotees who have been working in
>parallel with us but without any apparent cross-overs.
>
>  After studying their data model and scheme, let me offer some observations
>from my notes - which are a work in progress.   I'm am in no way making
>judgments about the extensive and thoughtful work already done by the Joint
>Research Centre Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup "in Association with the
>European Commission." Indeed, it's very impressive and state of the art.  It
>is very different, however, from the path that Legal XML and particularly
>the CourtFiling TC with its equally impressive work on its DTD's and
>policies to date as well as its plans to migrate to a schema in release 2.0.
>
>  Our Integrated Justice Technical Committee has taken a more parallel tack
>to OdrXML, in that the folks at SEARCH and at Georgia Tech Research
>Institute are developing a data model, data dictionary and a schema in
>parallel with work on specific document types such as arrest reports,
>warrants, charging documents and sentence/disposition documents through the
>life cycle of a criminal matter.
>
>  Please take my preliminary comments then as comparative observations and
>questions on how we can harmonize this very important work out of Europe
>with the efforts of Legal XML / OASIS and LEXML for global standards.
>
>  JK Notes on OdrXML V.1.0 --  2002.08.27
>
>  1. OdrXML 1.0 uses a Schema rather than a Document Type Definition.  They
>have included very helpful relationship diagrams in their documentation,
>although the link to the demonstration did not work when I checked it last.
>This whole approach is a step ahead of some of the work in progress by the
>Court Filing TC which is planning to move to a schema. It parallels the
>Integrated Justice TC's current work on a Data Model.
>
>  2. We all need to look carefully at the OdrXML data model to consider
>using this approach as our development framework.  Several IT folks in the
>various Legal XML workgroups have strongly advocated this approach rather
>than just building stand-alone DTD's and Schema for individual documents and
>waiting for a horizontal workgroup to reconcile differences.
>
>  3. The OdrXML data model is case-centric. It describes a case rather than
>a document (a related attribute of a document in the model) -- or a
>court-filing envelope.  This is a different approach than we have used, but
>we need some reactions from  from the data modeling experts at Georgia Tech
>Research Institute and others to assess the OdrXML model and how we can
>merge, converge, build on their work or unravel some of the choices each of
>us have made in taking divergent paths towards the similar goals.
>
>  4. The ODR XML data model and schema includes an interesting transmission
>element. A document can include: "xsd:element name='transmissionMedia"
>type="TransmissionMediaEnum" with a list of MIME types to distinguish
>between image formats, document formats, clear text etc".
>
>  The Legal XML Court Filing Group has had a robust debate on keeping a
>clear separation between the transmission envelope and the underlying
>document.  The ODR XML model needs clarification to determine if considers
>making transmission an underlying component in a Case or document [or a
>separate envelope which could transmit a bundle of documents and exhibits.]
>The semantics on this point get even more interesting with their definition
>of a "case" as "the overall envelope for all information in a dispute."
>Given the meaning of the "envelope" concept in Court Filing, we need to find
>a mutually agreeable alternative term such as a "container." More
>importantly we need to compare and reconcile our data models.
>
>  5. The primary players or actors in the OdrXML data model are Parties
>(Claimant, Respondent), Moderator (Case Officer, Mediator, Arbitrator) and
>Specialist (Witness, Translator, Expert).  Based on some recent work in
>developing a virtual dispute resolution platform with VirtualCourthouse, we
>used a more encompassing term "Neutral, " which was strongly suggested by a
>number of US ADR providers.
>
>  Our development team also made further distinctions between types of
>Cases. We added "Neutral Case Evaluation" and "Settlement Conference," for
>example.  The concept of a facilitated settlement conference with the
>neutral being more proactive than a mediator becomes quite pointed when we
>realized that a judges in Chambers acts as neutral too.  In addition, at
>least in the US, many courts have mandatory ADR with a judge or court clerk
>who refers cases, monitors them and may receive status reports.  Any overall
>model may need more players, actors or "Personas" the terms used in the
>OdrXML model.
>
>  The OdrXML model is very understandably focused on European Community type
>eCommece disputes. As we delve deeper into this work,  we need to generalize
>the data model to be more inclusive of other types of disputes such as
>domestic relations, AAA, securities arbitration, etc.
>
>   Looking at this whole data model afresh, makes me want to visit an even
>broader data model that follows commercial transactions through their full
>life cycle from bid, offer, contract, performance, dispute, litigation.  The
>Integrated Justice folks have addressed more document types in the life
>cycle of an incident, an arrest, a warrant, a charging document and sentence
>disposition.  The missing element that the OdrXML data model raises in a
>"case."  That gets us into law firm, agency and court Case Management
>Systems.
>
>  The great American Naturalist John Muir has observed:"Whenever I pick up a
>small piece of nature, I find it is connected to the rest of the universe."
>The work on OdrXML reflects a part of the life cycle of legal matters. In
>part response to Rolly's question then, this is a good place to begin,
>particularly if we connect it "to the rest of the universe" and parallel
>work by other LegalXML TC's.
>
>  My compliments to the Joint Research Center for their clarifying work.
>
>  And to all, please join the OdrXML TC or or other TC's so we can connect
>with the rest of the global XML community.
>
>  Jim Keane
>  ViceChair
>  LegalXML/Oasis Steering Committee
>
>   JKeane.Law.Pro
>  <Litigation Systems>
>  North Potomac Maryland USA
>  301-948-4062 F: 301-947-9159
>         www.jkeane.com
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Rolly Chambers [mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com]
>  Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:47 AM
>  To: legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
>  Subject: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point?
>
>
>  From Karl Best's initial message creating this discussion list, I realize
>the scope is "to explore the formation of an Online Dispute Resolution
>Technical Committee" - something I'm in favor of and am willing to join in
>as a TC member.
>
>  I also understand from Karl's message that the idea is for an ODR TC (if
>formed) to "build from relevant work done previously by the Joint Research
>Centre Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup in association with the European
>Commission." An OdrXML draft standard ( Version 0.1 )  is available at
>http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM000000000
>000118C. Additional and more general information about ODR is also available
>at
>http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM000000000
>000000D.
>
>  Is anyone familiar enough with the OdrXML draft standard 0.1 to have a
>view whether it would be an appropriate starting point for an ODR TC to
>build from? I've looked at the OdrXML 0.1 draft standard, but haven't
>studied it. I certainly don't have any opinion whether it would be a good
>starting point for an ODR TC. I'm interested to hear what views others may
>have.
>
>  Rolly Chambers
>
>