It is the semantics. It sounds like the clear consensus is for "party" to
have the more limited meaning of "party to a case" rather than a broader
meaning. I definitely agree that "party" should have the more limited meaning it
customarily receives in court proceedings.
As for a term to describe the broader meaning, I have no
preference between "actor" or "participant". I confess to being unclear about
the benefit or need for a single high level element like "actor" or
"participant."
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 9:51
AM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS
Person Object
John: I agree with Steven Taylor's suggestion that we consider
using the term "participant." Party has a specific connotation.
There may be court and case related participants pertinent to a court's
operation and entered into the court's information management system, but not
"parties" to the case (e.g., treatment providers, interpreters).
I know it's a matter of semantics, but it's semantics that
gave so many people heartburn over the "actor" label.
Moira O'Leary Rowley
General Manager,
Justice Solutions
ACS Government Systems
859.277.1500 (Lexington)
816.361.0303
(Kansas City)
moira.rowley@acs-inc.com
-----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