RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object

["Poindexter, Gary W" <gpoindexter@kpmg.com>]

As I interpret the proposal and the proposed person model:

A PersonType can be a witness, victim, judge, suspect (role) type. An
OrganizationType "Is A" victim or suspect or crime scene type; and a
PlaceType "Is A" crime scene or victim type. This means that we define our
documents (SuperObject) as people, organizations and places.

Is this the model we want for justice documents? 

What if a document type (arrest report, court filing, warrant, ad museaum)
is made up of ("Has-A") witness, judge, victim, crime scene, etc
(roles/types)? In this model a VictimType "Is-A" PersonType,
OrganizationType or PlaceType. A WitnessType "Is-A" PersonType. A
CrimeSceneType "Is-A" OrganizationType or PlaceType. 

The second approach allows us to define our model with roles per document
type (answers a question raised in one of the posts I believe) and define
persons, organizations and places per role. The proposed model says that we
define our documents as having persons, organizations and places that are
victims, witnesses or crime scenes.

I am asking a question not making a judgment even though I prefer the
latter. I also believe that the latter definition is more consistent with
the current OJP DD, which isn't a big issue other than it would potentially
improve backward compatibility as we migrate to a "new and improved" OJP DD.

gary

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:59 PM
To: Court Filing List
Cc: Mark Kindl; John Wandelt
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object


Dear colleagues:

I have been in further discussions with Mark Kindl and John Wandelt at
GTRI about the person object and possible ways to accommodate Court
Filing's need for an element that accommodates persons, organizations
and things.

They have suggested that an actor object could be created which allowed
the use of either the person, organization, or property object.  They
have also
suggested that this object might be more easily understood and accepted
if it were called "party" rather than "actor."

I attach a PowerPoint diagram of the possible "actor" element that we
have been discussing.  I would appreciate getting your comments on it.

Can anyone think of another instance -- other than party -- in which we
need to be able to accept persons and organizations or persons,
organizations and things?  It seems to me that witnesses are invariably
individuals, even when they are testifying as agents or officers of an
organization.  "Party" would seem to work for contracts as well as for
court cases.  In sum, what do you think of the idea of "party" as the
name of the object instead of "actor?"

I look forward to your ideas and suggestions.

--
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.         
*****************************************************************************