RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Recap of person object discussion; stillneed input

["Lewis, Diane" <Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov>]

John,
i appreciate your efforts to distill the issues and your need to come to some conclusions at this juncture..

i along with several DOJ colleagues are reviewing the person object from the practitioner, federal attorney, case management system perspectives... i have not received input from these colleagues so the following comments reflect my current thinking given the TC messages exchanges to date....

1. the law dictionary i use defines PERSON  "in law, an individual or incroporated group having certain legal rights and responsibilities... this definition includes foreign and domestic corporations.  see 134 US 594  delinations of the term has been necessary to ascertain the application of the 14th Amendment to the constitution.   

the context of use of Objects are based on the business context and use... the challenge in the justice domain i am finding is the need to  continuously define and interpreting objects..  given the boundaries applied by type of case to be litigated or prosecuted... a fact you note below as you list the many descriptions of players in the justice system as they fit to a specific case process/context...

the comparison to the law dictionary definition of PERSON is the definition for "natural person" within the context of the justice processes.... a human being as opposed to artificial or fictitious persons such as corporations.  as stated in my law dictionary... the phrase natural person does not include corporate entities, but the phrase person without qualification may or may not include artificial persons, depending on context...   thus the phrase no person in the 14th amendment's equal protection clause has been held to include natural and artificial persons...   but the same phrase no person in the 5th amendments privilege against self-discrimination clause has been held to include only natural persons and not corporations since the privilege is personal and may not be asserted by an artificial person.

2. through the lifecycle of a case type the identity of the person may change.. (as you know)
thus the object structure should accommodate this ... i believe the draft object does... given the subclass mapping can accommodate multiple sets... my concern is making sure that the differences are clearly defined.. as the GTRI project has asked us to do in the issue paper..

an example of my concern:  plaintiff and defendant should be called out under the subject subclass.. given that subject subclass will be the type of person that the RDD defines... within the context of the justice proceeding

note that an attorney or judge or officer can become a subject... a "political" official can become a subject ... therefore i suggest the following delination between citizen and official..

Citizen subclass definition:  individuals or corporations who claim protection from the U.S. justice system and are subject to the jurisdiction.  Individuals who consequently participate in or otherwise contribute to the execution of justice.

Official subclass definition:  individuals or entity who is a person invested with the authority of a particular position or office through which  an act that is  recognized in the justice community in terms of existing  laws, regulations, and/or procedures is performed.

Subject is a person or entity directly interested in the case..

i was not involved in the formulation of the existing dictionary entries. however i think that all the possibilities you note below and others have identified can be accommodated/addressed within the draft frame GTRI has developed... we just need to provide them with the level of detail you have already been thinking about.... diane

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 5:47 AM
To: Court Filing List
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Recap of person object discussion; still
need input


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!