Re: [legalxml-courtfiling] Party or Actor

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

I prefer exactly the opposite. I would like to see developed a Party object and a non-Party object. The first could include persons, property (for American practice involving in rem and forfeiture actions), and entities. The second could include witnesses, lawyers, judges, staff, victims, etc.

Usually judges are interested first in who is and who is not a litigant before the Court. Basic treatment and consideration is based upon this distinction. The objects should be crafted accordingly.

Another equivalent term could be litigants and non-litigants.

Regards.

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Taylor, Steven (CAA)" <Steven.Taylor@courts.sa.gov.au>
Date:  Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:38:01 +0930

>John,
>
>I would prefer to keep away from the name Party as it has a specific use in
>the "Party to a Case', ie the plaintiff and defendant. I thought that Actor
>was used to avoid this and to enable all the other bodies interested in the
>case to be covered.
>I personally have never like Actor although it is used extensively in
>Object-Oriented methodologies.
>
>I would prefer to use the word "Participants" if we need to move away from
>Actor.
>
>Steven Taylor.
>Project Director
>e-Business Transformation
>Courts Administration Authority
>South Australia
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>