Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:43
AM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Proposed "person" object
The following are in response to some of the many comments
made below:
- King County is implementing Court Filing 1.1 as part of our
E-Filing project. We are currently in user acceptance testing and
anticipate going live with our pilot project (filings in live cases by a
limited number of law firms) soon (September/October timeframe). After
the pilot project, we would be opening up e-filing to any filers who want to
use it. As John Greacen stated, we made a decision at the Salt Lake City
meeting that there will not be further changes to Court Filing 1.1 because
there are implementations using it. That decision was included in the
minutes, I believe, and since no one disagreed after the meeting during the
minute review, that decision should be final; we should not need to continue
to debate that point. Major changes such as moving to schema,
considering moving to ebXML, considering a "person" object, etc. are all to be
part of Court Filing 2.0.
- Someone said that "actor" is not used in Court Filing
1.1. It is used in Court Filing 1.1, although if you do a "search" for
it in the PDF document, you don't find it (not sure why that is). We are
using "actor" in our implementation for the filer. We are not doing case
initiation in this phase, but in the future I anticipate that we may sometimes
use actor for different purposes such as parties to a case, which is not
always a person, as has been pointed out by at least one of the people in this
e-mail exchange.
- I agree with the principle that John Messing reminded us of,
which is that those proposing a major change such as using a "person" object
instead of the current "actor" and "role" bear the burden of justifying that
change. As we all know there are many, many ways to technically
implement any given system. We could endlessly debate any and all of the
potential options. As part of OASIS and also the larger justice
community, we should model whatever solutions we choose to implement in our
work products after existing standards and best practices whenever
possible. I hope that approach, as well as considerations of the impact
to prior implementations, are weighed and considered as we discuss and debate
Court Filing 2.0.
- I am hopeful that we also will develop a Q&R 1.1, Court
Document 1.1, etc. that is compatible with Court Filing 1.1, and that those
standards also will also hold on major structural changes until a Court Filing
2.0 is developed. It seems that with so many things to consider for
Court Filing 2.0, it will take a fair amount of time for that standard to
reach a state where an implementation could use it. We, from what I
understand, are fairly close to having a Q&R 1.1 and Court Document 1.1; I
hope that work can be completed so that those courts that have Court Filing
1.1 implementations can implement these important Legal XML standards rather
than wait for Court Filing 2.0.
Thanks,
Catherine Krause
E-Filing Project
Manager
King County Department of Judicial
Administration
(206)296-7860
catherine.krause@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message-----
From:
Poindexter, Gary W [mailto:gpoindexter@kpmg.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 8:37 AM
To: 'jmessing@law-on-line.com'
Cc:
Court Filing List
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Proposed "person" object
My issue is not with the object model, it is with what model
to propose. The court filing model based upon actor and role (which by the
way, permits justice and business entities to have roles) works beyond court
filing. Build the object model with those classes and subclasses instead of
making new ones. Person may be too narrow a scope for the first proposal, but
I understand limiting scope.
I can't quote a great many implementations based upon the
court filing DTD but I know that there are projects under construction that
use it. Texas Online is an example.
Camel case is a non-issue to me. Pick one and let's do
it.
John M caught my incorrect details like
<personalIDNumber> vs PersonalIdentification - sorry if this caused
confusion. The point is, the current standard is not PersonalID as in the GTRI
proposal. Change for the sake of change unless they can provide some
meaningful reason why PersonalID is superior to PersonalIDNumber.
gary
-----Original Message-----
From: John
Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 9:50 AM
To: John.M.Greacen"
<john@greacen.net>"@p0016c25.us.kpmg.com
Cc:
Court Filing List
Subject: Re: [legalxml-courtfiling]
Proposed "person" object
At one point in time, in 2001 I believe, we developed an
operating principle for situations like this that paraphrased said a proponent
of change bears the justification for making the change in order to balance a
need for improving a standard against the risk of undermining prior work of
the group. So, it seems that the group needs to affirmatively adopt the change
in order for it to be effected, if this principle is still in
effect.
An object model is a cleaner and a more workable way in my
opinion to express the relations between the subjects of court filing actions
and their relationships to various other subjects and issues involved in a
case.
On the other hand, the way it was set up in Court Filing 1.0
is probably a sufficiently workable way of establishing and managing the
relationships to make this improvement irrelevant. The question ultimately is
the benefit of being consistent with the work of the justice groups involved
the data dictionary project. One issue that comes to my mind is the question
whether this change will be a final one, at least for a determinable time
period, or the TC is looking at becoming reactive to the work of other groups,
which I have a hunch could be a frustrating and ultimately unrewarding
experience.
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "John M.
Greacen" <john@greacen.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug
2002 02:46:48 -0600
>In Salt Lake City, when we discussed the requirements for
the
>Electronic
Court
Filing 2.0 specification we included not only moving to schema and considering
SOAP and ebxml, but also making changes called for by the creation of this
object-oriented data dictionary. So, we have already recognized
the
>likelihood of making significant changes, and that we will
mark those
changes by moving to a version 2 (which
will not be backwardly compatible with version 1).
>
>And Messing is right that change at
this level would have to carry
>through
into Court Document and Q&R and CMS-API.
>
>The question for me is not whether to
contemplate a change of this
magnitude, but rather
whether this would be a change for the better. Rolly says yes.
Gary says no. What do others think?
>
>John Messing wrote:
>
>> The "role" approach is
also found in QnR. That would also need to be
revised
in addition to CF and CD. What about CMS-API and Court Policy? How extensive
are the changes, if any need to be made?
>>
>> The bright side
(though it scarcely seems bright in light of the
>> efforts
that have been expended to
date) is that there are few actual LegalXML implementations of CF. I know King
County has some work done already in CF. How badly would a change impact
existing implementations?
>>
>> Until we know these
parameters, it is hard to weigh the cost/benefits
>> of
a change to an object model for a
person or entity.
>>
>> Each of the other changes outlined by John, even the name case
>> changes,
has a
destabilizing effect on potential or actual implementations that needs to be
carefully assessed. It is not easy to plan or deploy applications with the
basic standard rapidly changing, sometimes in seemingly contradictory
ways.
>>
>> ---------- Original
Message ----------------------------------
>>
From: "Chambers, Rolly" <rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>
>> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:14:55 -0400
>>
>> >I'm not sure about moving
cheese - in fact I'm having trouble
>>
>finding it.
>> >
>> >I checked the Justice and Public Safety XML Data Element
Definitions
>> >Draft 0.1.0 (April 26, 2002)
(
>> >http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/legalxml-sc/200205/pdf00000.pdf
>> >)
>> >and
confirmed that it does not include either an <actor> or a
<role>
>> >element, but does include a
<person> element.
>> >
>> >I also checked the Court Filing 1.1 Proposed Standard (22
July 2002)
>> >(
>> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/legalxml-courtfiling/documents/
>> >2207
>>
>2002cf1-1.pdf) and confirmed that it does not include a
<person>
>> >element, but does include
<actor> and <role> elements.
>>
>
>> >All this checking also confirmed
that both the Justice Data Element
>>
>Definitions (I'm assuming this is the current data dictionary --
the
>> >"DD") and the CF 1.1 Standard include
a <personalIDNumber> element
>> >and
that neither includes a <personalIdentification> element. This
>> >has me wondering whether I'm looking at
the same data dictionary and
>> >CF 1.1
standard that Gary has in mind.
>> >
>> >On balance, I agree with the point that a person
can have multiple
>> >roles in a legal
proceeding. Finding an effective way to use XML to
>> >describe the various roles that a person can have is not
easy. One
>> >reason for the difficulty is
that a role depends on context, which
>> >can
change readily. For instance, one person may be a child,
>> >daughter, sibling, sister, parent, and mother in the
context of a
>> >family; a witness, a
plaintiff, and a party in the context of a
>>
>lawsuit; or a driver, an owner, and a victim in the context of an
>> >auto accident.
>> >
>> >I disagree that
using multiple <role> elements to describe the roles
>> >of a person or actor is better than using the proposed
subclasses,
>> >such as "plaintiff,"
"victim," or "witness." It is as easy to
>>
>describe a person as having the subclass "witness" (e.g.
>> ><person><witness/></person>) as having
the role of "witness" (e.g.
>>
><actor><role>witness</role></actor>).
>> >
>> >One
advantage of the subclass approach is that it provides greater
>> >constraint and consistency in describing
a person as a "witness". It
>> >also provides
more effective standardization - there would be only
>> >one "witness" subclass element, but there could be
"witness,"
>> >"Witness," or "WITNESS" role
values based just on differences in
>>
>capitalization. This feature of the proposed subclass approach is a
>> >definite plus as I see it. Using a
<person> element also would align
>>
>the CF 1.1 DTD more closely with the Justice Data Element
>> >Definitions.
>> >
>> >An obvious problem with the proposed "person
object"/subclass
>> >approach is that
incorporating it would require change to the CF1.1
>> >DTD, which is inconvenient, even if it is a better
approach. Also,
>> >the proposed subclasses
certainly would benefit from refining then
>>
>to include more meaningful names (which the proposal invites).
>> >Finally, the <person> element
clearly would not be appropriate to
>> >use
to use for organizations, such as corporations, associations, or
>> >partnerships, so there would continue to
be a need for element(s)
>> >containing
information about "non-persons."
>> >
>> >I think the benefits of the proposed "person
object" and subclass
>> >approach weigh in
favor of a change. I respect that others may find
>> >the inconveniece of a change outweighs the
benefits.
>> >
>> >Rolly Chambers
>>
>
>> >
-----Original Message-----
>>
> From: Poindexter, Gary W
>> > Sent: Wed
8/28/2002 9:22 AM
>>
> To: Court Filing List
>> > Cc:
>> > Subject:
RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person" object
>> >
>> >
>> > As one who is working
on a non-court filing implementation
>>
>(i.e.
>> >complaints) I find the court
filing concepts of actor and roles far
>>
>superior to this proposal.
>> >
>> > They made
some name changes for no apparent reason.
>>
>PersonalID vs. PersonalIdentification - why? One of the basic
>> >concepts of the DD is to not use
abbreviations. Their first change
>>
>substitutes a definitive tag name with one that uses an
>> >abbreviation.
>> >
>> > They
changed PersonalIdentifiers to specific types of
>> >personal identifiers. I find the flexibility of the
current model
>> >superior to what is
proposed.
>> >
>> > They have created a
division through person classes that does
>>
>not work as well as Actor and Role. A police officer can be both the
>> >"arresting officer" and a "witness."
Their proposal does not appear
>> >to permit
this without creating two subclasses. With the current
>> >court filing model I can create an Actor and give them two
roles -
>> >one as an arresting officer and
one as a witness. It appears that I
>> >can
create the same structure with the proposed model, but why
>> >change the model unless it has some superior qualities
that I am not
>> >seeing.
>> >
>>
> Their model is probably workable, but
it does not seem to be
>> >superior to what
we have in the Justice DD and the court filing DTD.
>> >I am not willing to change unless there is purpose and
value add
>> >from the change. Don't move my
cheese unless you can justify the
>>
>move.
>> >
>> > gary
>> >
>>
>
-----Original Message-----
>>
>
From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
>>
>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:05 PM
>>
>
To: Court Filing List
>>
>
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Proposed "person"
>> > object
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Please review this proposal carefully and get me your
>> >comments. Note the Sept 2 comment deadline.
>> >
>>
>
In ECFS 1.0 and 1.1 we use an "actor" element which
>> >encompasses persons, entities and things -- all of which
can be
>> >parties to cases (persons,
corporations or associations, and ships,
>>
>autos or currency in in rem proceedings). I have asked whether the
>> >proposed "super object" is intended to
serve the purpose of our
>> >"actor"
element.
>> >
>>
>
Are there other problems with the proposed structure
>> >of this "person object" from our point of view?
>> >
>>
>
--
>>
>
John M. Greacen
>>
>
Greacen Associates, LLC.
>>
>
18 Fairly Road
>>
>
Santa Fe, NM 87507
>>
>
505-471-0203
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
>> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>--
>John M.
Greacen
>Greacen Associates, LLC.
>18 Fairly Road
>Santa Fe, NM
87507
>505-471-0203
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this
email by anyone else is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance
on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any
opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and
conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement
letter.
*****************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>