[legalxml-courtfiling] Recap of person object discussion; still needinput

["John M. Greacen" <john@greacen.net>]

Let me attempt to moderate this discussion, answer some of the questions
that have been raised, and, once again, ask for input on the critical issue(s)
facing us.

First -- My posting is not a proposal to modify Electronic Court Filing 1.1!!!  It has nothing to do with 1.1.  It has to do with the Global Data Dictionary Schema effort, which we agreed in Salt Lake to incorporate in our version 2.0.

Second -- Because we will be heavily affected by the Data Dictionary when we go to 2.0, we have to give our input now.  The object oriented Data Dictionary Schema is being developed now -- on a very tight time schedule.  You designated Robin Gibson and me to be your delegates to the Data Dictionary development effort.  We are asking for your help in performing our role.  We do not have the luxury of sitting back, making no comment, and saying we will or will not go along with whatever the Data Dictionary group comes up with when we get to 2.0.  The Data Dictionary Schema is being designed so that groups like ours can incorporate large pieces of it by reference in our future schemas.  It will be a highly influential structure, which we will not be at liberty to ignore.

Third -- How did it come to pass that our "actor" and "role" elements did not get included in the current data dictionary?  The reconciliation effort addressed elements used in two or more of the existing XML standards, plus elements in one standard that other groups were interested in.  "Actor" and "role" appear only in Court Filing;  they are not in the Rap Sheet, RISS, or AMVAA.  None of those groups expressed any interest in the "actor" or "role" concepts.  They had no objection to our continuing to use them but they thought they had no need in their businesses for a concept broader than "person."  There are many such elements in the standards of the four groups that were not included in the data dictionary.  In short, the current data dictionary is not a compendium of all elements contained in the four standards that were reconciled; it is a subset of those elements -- those used in more than one standard plus those of interest to more than one standard setting group.

Fourth -- From the small amount of discussion that has focused on the actual issue, I gather the following:  Rolly prefers the person object model over our "actor"/"role" model.  Gary preferes "actor"/"role".  Both have worked extensively with the actor/role structure.  Rolly did not like it for Court Document;  Gary does like it for the work that he is doing outside court filing.  No one else has made an argument one way or the other -- or I have missed it.

In a telephone conversation with Rolly, we came up with this additional consideration:
--  The use of actor/role requires that each court specify in Court Filing Policy the roles that it requires and supports - e.g., (for criminal cases) district judge, magistrate judge, justice of the peace, assistant district attorney, assistant public defender, defense counsel, witness, defendant, juror, confidential informant, victim, etc.  For every additional case category, additional, different roles are needed, e.g., (for domestic relations and domestic violence cases) petitioner, respondent, child, grandparent, relative, intervenor, child protective services attorney, assistant district attorney, guardian ad litem, domestic violence victim, counsel for petitioner, counsel for respondent, counsel for intervenor, etc.
--  Conversely, a comprehensive person object seems to contemplate the delineation of every one of these different "person types."  Is that possible?  Is it workable?  Different jurisdictions call the same person type by different names, e.g., district attorney, prosecutor, county attorney, prosecuting attorney, special prosecutor, assistant county attorney, deputy county attorney, supervising deputy county attorney.  How does this fit within the "person object?"  For the object to be complete, must it include most if not all of these "person types."  GTRI expects that the model will be extended to include types not specified.  How do we handle types specified but called something else in a different jurisdiction?

I have received a response to my inquiry whether the "super object" in the proposal is intended to be our "actor" element.  It seems not.  I did not hear opposition to an "actor" or "entity" object at the Denver meeting -- but I had to leave early and it may have been expressed after I left.  Here is the question I asked, and the answer I received, set forth below in italics.

Webb -- In the Electronic Court Filing 1.0 and 1.1 specifications, we chose to
use an "actor" element, which includes, but is not limited to "persons." The
courts and lawyers need to be able to include entities such as corporations,
partnerships, and associations. We also need to include "things" in the same
way in some instances, such as cases in which an automobile or a large amount
of currency is proposed for forfeiture and court rules require that the
automobile or the money be the "party" in the case. Do you intend that the
proposed "SuperObject" will serve this purpose? If so, is it necessary at
this point to define the "SuperObject" and its other components?

I have referred the proposal to other members of our Technical Committee and
may have other comments to submit when I hear back from them.

John,

In earlier versions of our design, we included an "actor" class, from which we derived organizations and persons.  However, that seemed to be controversial at the meeting in Denver, so we backed off and stuck to modeling a person.

XML schema is limited to a single inheritance model, and it is a difficult shortcoming, which restricts us from using the inheritance model to support this type of polymorphic substitution.  RDF supports multiple inheritance, but until that becomes widely supported and acceptable, we will likely have to live with the limitations of XML schema.  Developing an alternative standard method for supporting the level of substitution you desire would be a
Good Thing, and any input is welcome.

With the limitations of XML schema, you could get a similar effect to that substitution using the "choice" construct of XML schema.  Creating an "actor" type to perform that substitution seems contrived, and is probably not advisable.  With a single-inheritance model, we should limit subtyping to cases where there are common data components among the supertype and the
subtypes.

Thanks,
The GTRI team

Folks, Robin and I need guidance on this issue.  Comments on this proposal closes on September 2d.  Based on what little I have heard, and my own thinking, I am leaning towards the following sort of response:

"I have circulated this for response within the Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee.  I received one favorable and one unfavorable response.  However, based on my understanding of the needs of courts and lawyers, I oppose the current person object as being too narrow to serve our business needs.  Our scope goes well beyond criminal cases.  However, both in criminal and civil cases, we need to be able to handle persons, organizations, and things as parties to and participants in lawsuits.  An "actor" or "entity" object would meet our needs.  I also believe that such an object would fully meet the needs of law enforcement organizations that care only about "persons."  An "actor" or "entity" object could have three subobjects of "persons," "organizations," and "things" or "objects."  The current proposed object does not support our business needs.  I also do not believe that it meets the needs of law enforcement, which must investigate crimes committed by corporations and other types of organizations, must interact with other organizations, and which has to deal as evidence with the "things" that end up being the subject of forfeiture cases.  I have not been provided with any suggestion for how our needs will be met by this or any other object.  Consequently, I do not believe that this object is ready for adoption until our broader category of business needs is addressed.

One of our members has pointed out that the proposed object is inconsistent with the current data dictionary in several regards, for no apparent reason -- PersonalIDNumber has become PersonalID and AssignedID.  PersonType has been split into BioMetricIdentity and PersonalIdentity.  PersonDescription has become PersonalIdentity.  And the proposed object has no reference to name type (e.g., current, alias, doing business as, formerly known as, etc.).  I was under the impression that our charge was to make as few changes to the current data dictionary as possible.

Finally, I am not clear on how detailed the person object needs to be in defining all of the person types that are used in the justice arena.  For instance, I have come up with the following list for criminal cases:  district judge, magistrate judge, justice of the peace, assistant district attorney, assistant public defender, defense counsel, witness, defendant, juror, confidential informant, victim, etc.  For every additional case category, additional, different person types are needed, e.g., (for domestic relations and domestic violence cases) petitioner, respondent, child, grandparent, relative, intervenor, child protective services attorney, assistant district attorney, guardian ad litem, domestic violence victim, counsel for petitioner, counsel for respondent, counsel for intervenor, etc.

Further, different jurisdictions call the same person type by different names, e.g., district attorney, prosecutor, county attorney, prosecuting attorney, special prosecutor, assistant county attorney, deputy county attorney, supervising deputy county attorney.  How does this fit within the "person object?"  For the object to be complete, must it include all of these "person types."  How do we handle types specified but called something else in another jurisdiction?"

I continue to seek input.  Perhaps this specific possible response will help to focus your attention on the real issue(s) facing us.  Please respond no later than September 3.  Since the 2d is a holiday, I intend to invoke standard court rules allowing a response on the next business day!