RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object

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

The diagram indicates that the "subclasses" of the "person" element
would be "citizen," "official," and "subject." These subclassifications
are not intuitive or particularly meaningful to me as an attorney. For
instance, it is unclear to me what the distinction would be between a
"subject" and a "citizen" in a court document.
 
From my perspective, a more intuitive and meaningful set of subclasses
of the "person" element at least for purposes of court documents would
be "witness," "attorney," "judicial official" or "judicial officer" (for
judges, justices, magistrates, possibly court clerks, etc.),
"enforcement officer" or "enforcement official" (for law enforcement
officers), and "administrative official" or "administrative officer"
(for administrative hearing officers, administrative law judges, board
members, etc.). Members of these subclasses are invariably individual
"persons" in the context of court documents.
 
I recognize that a "party" (as well as a "victim") in the context of a
court document can be either a "person" or an "organization." Thus,
where the subclasses of "person" are limited to those whose members are
invariably individuals, "person" would not include "party" or "victim"
as subclasses. 
 
Rolly Chambers

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: John M. Greacen 
	Sent: Fri 9/20/2002 4:58 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

<<winmail.dat>>