Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object

[John Messing <jmessing@law-on-line.com>]

I don't think "Actor" as an object helps much. It adds nothing and has no
recognized meaning in legal terms.

Usually there are parties. Parties have attorneys. They may have witnesses.
There may be non-party victims and witnesses.

I agree with Rolly that citizen, subject and official have no legal context
I am aware of except perhaps for judicial officials.

I think an object syntax is superior to linear relationships, depending on
the crafting of the object.

I give this iteration two thumbs down.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chambers, Rolly" <rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>
To: "Court Filing List" <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 7:28 AM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object


> 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
>
>
>
>