RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Attached proposed person object

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

I agree with the wisdom of leaving the CF 1.1 standard and related Legal
XML standards alone for the time being.

I also agree that looking more closely at an object model approach, such
as the "person object" proposal, in the context of CF 2.0 is a good
idea. Although I agree in concept that an object model approach is a
good way to go forward, the specific proposal by GTRI for the "person
object" could be improved. For one thing, the naming and grouping of the
proposed subclasses could be brought more in line with the "classes" of
persons commonly encountered in legal proceedings - witnesses
(informants, deponents, experts, etc.), victims, attorneys, judicial
officials (judges, justices, magistrates, clerks, etc.), and law
enforcement officers (detectives, agents, deputies, patrol officers,
etc.). There are no doubt some others worth including.

I am assuming those who will frequently be creating or editing court
filings and court documents (e.g. legal secretaries, attorneys, judges,
etc.) will find such elements easy and intuitive to use. I think it also
will be easier for processing applications to locate and extract
information marked up with more descriptive tags instead of having to
process the text within a <role> element to determine whether the
information concerns an attorney, a victim, a witness, etc.

None of this is to say that the "actor" and "role" elements have zero
use -- but just that the person "object model" approach is a way to
improve upon them.

Rolly Chambers   


-----Original Message-----
From:	John Messing
Sent:	Fri 8/30/2002 8:23 AM
To:	Court Filing List; Poindexter, Gary W
Cc:	Charles Kaiman; Chris Hellewell; David Fauth; Deborah Mater;
Glenn Archer; James l Threatte; Jim Harris; Koshiko Delaney-Karell; Leff
Langford; Mike Hulme; Mike Lang; Moira Rowley; Paul Leuba
Subject:	RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Attached proposed person
object

Gary: 

If I am the JohnM referred to in your posting, I think you ascribe to me
greater powers of observation and comprehension than I frankly think I
can claim or deserve.

My own preference is to leave the family of 1.1 standards that are
frozen, in progress, or near completion alone for the moment and to
bring that work to completion. Even if there is only one major
implementation that can presently take advantage of them, we owe it as a
practical as well as a moral imperative to the developers and courts
that have listened to us in the past to give them what they need to work
with now and in the future, as a complete family of standards. Otherwise
our credibility will suffer and no one may listen to us in the future
and rightly so.

At the same time, we have begun to envision a new generation of xml or
rdf standards for embodiment in the 2.0 family of standards. I think
with regard to the 2.0 family of standards, what we have done in 1.1 is
instructive but not binding upon us. With 2.0, it may be possible to
treat the rapidly evolving justice grouping of dictionary definitions as
extensions to ebxml or other mature technologies, and to incorporate
their camel naming conventions, even if they change from week to week or
month to month, until there is final agreement upon them. In this
regard, I think that an object model for the subjects of court filings
is superior because as objects they can logically have properties, which
may make the relationships between them clearer and easier to express in
mark-up language, depending of course on how this is accomplished in
practice.

The timing may not be perfect because of the apparent need to respond to
the justice dictionary groups quickly. I think we should tell them that
we intend to study the proposals in the context of our next generation
of standards, and to begin that work parallel with completing work on
1.1.

I guess this is technically an amendment to your proposal.

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Poindexter, Gary W" <gpoindexter@kpmg.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 06:13:54 -0400

>Based upon the original proposal and the thread as I interpret it, let
me
>make some observations and hope that the more detailed of the group
will
>expand upon these observations and my recommendation:
>
>The issue as originally stated is simply a reorganization of the
"person
>object" as it stands in the OJP DD. I used version 1.1.0 with upper
camel
>case on which to base my comments. I actually looked at the schema
while
>writing this so that John M doesn't embarrass me again by pointing out
my
>lack of detail.
>
>The only reference in the schema (that I can find) to actor is
"...specify
>membership in a collection of Actors" in a comment. There are no
references
>to role. I believe that John already pointed this out.
>
>The real issue is: Shame on us, why has this happened?
>
>In the "Principles for Development of XML Specifications for the
Justice and
>Public Safety Community" there are two bullets that may apply:
>
>Bullet 3: "XML Specifications shall be over-inclusive by specifying
those
>elements that may be required by fewer than all participants and making
>those elements optional."
>
>Bullet 7: "Certain complex elements are sufficiently independent and
driven
>by group business rules such that they cannot be used by more [than]
one
>organization. In such cases the shareable simple elements contained
within
>the complex element are defined."
>
>If we/NTIA/whomever have interpreted the actor and role
elements/hierarchies
>as belonging to bullet 7 then I propose that we/they have erred. 
>
>1) These elements and structures work well outside of courts, court
filing
>and associated document types and functionality.
>2) Per bullet 3 they should have been included in the OJP DD anyway.
The
>intent of bullet 3 was to avoid the very problem we are having. That
is, the
>DD has been "extended" (bullet 4) by the court filing TC (formerly
LegalXML
>workgroup) and therefore bullet 5 applies "Wherever possible previously
>developed solutions should be adopted or extended."
>
>I propose that the court filing TC propose to NTIA or the latest
taskforce
>that elements/hierarchies in court filing 1.X, and other court related
>proposals if appropriate, be added to the DD as dictated by either
bullet 3
>or bullet 7. DJ has done a pretty good job in the past with such
>classifications.
>
>If the TC as a whole is not prepared to back the current, entire DTD as
a
>proposed submission to NTIA, then I propose that role and actor are
>sufficiently mature and enduring to deserve proposal on their own
merit. If
>there is disagreement on the content or definition of actor and/or role
in a
>more global context, then the DD process (non-existent to date) must
allow
>public comment from all sectors that presumably will or can lead to a
more
>global definition. Then we can change because someone will provide
>justification for the change.
>
>We then ask GTRI to back up a step, look at the role/actor concept and
>reevaluate their proposal for "person type" in this context. Or maybe
they
>try proposing a change to "Address" instead of "person type."
>
>And if anyone cares, GTRI should justify the change of "PersonalID,
>AssignedID" from PersonalIDNumber, PersonType being split into
>BioMetricIdentity and PersonalIdentity (PersonalIdentity is currently
>PersonDescription) and no reference to name type (current, alias).
>
>gary
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 8:13 AM
>To: Court Filing List
>Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Attached proposed person object
>
>
>It appears that I forgot to attach the GTRI proposal.  Here it is.
>
>--
>John M. Greacen
>Greacen Associates, LLC.
>18 Fairly Road
>Santa Fe, NM  87507
>505-471-0203
>
>
>
>***********************************************************************
******
>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>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

<<winmail.dat>>