OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-courtfiling message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object


agree.. with you Shane..
even if authors cannot attend face to face meeting... use of teleconference would be helpful during the meeting to clarify decision to be made.    

i provide some comment on this matter earlier based on the original drawing....

i will restate my thoughts after further study.. but for now the federal court and federal attorney perspective  from discussions with others would not support use of actor/role.... 

Note: the use of the term actor in current IT development is a term used in Unified Modeling Language by developers.. 

In development context system users are described as actors in specific system use scenarios ... the actor is motivated to use a particular system based on the user "role"(s)..  for example Case Clerk Actor can be filled by several different members of a USAO's paraprofessional staff.

the use of the tag will be expanded beyond transmission...... it must be mapped to or based on an existing business rule or recognizable justice community practice/procedure... to be easily identified by the justice community...   diane lewis usdoj/eousa

-----Original Message-----
From: Durham, Shane (LNG-CL) [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:53 PM
To: Court Filing List
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object


Of the diagram:
The diagram is not precise enough for me to say I have no issue with it.

But, I think, it is very close to a data-model that I would support.
I would like to speak more with the authors... will they be at Boston?


John Messing writes:
>>I would like to see developed a Party object and a non-Party object. <<

Surely, these two objects are two flavors of the SAME thing.  I sense that
the only difference in your proposed objects is that you see 'party' as
being related to a case/filing and non-party as not.  If that is the only
difference, then, we should be able to define some kind of 'Named-thing',
from which your 'party' or 'non-party' would both inherit their common
characteristics.

I think that's all the diagram is trying to express. along with a suggestion
that the 'thing' be called 'actor'.  You can have 'party' and 'non-party'..
but they are both sub-types of 'actor'. eh?


On the semantic issue of 'Actor' vs 'Party' vs. 'Participant'.

We need to have a generic term that represents a 'Named-thing' that has a
'name' and can behave as a person, business, or property.  This
'named-thing' needs a title that is independant of its possible
case/filing/document contexts. 

As Allen Jenson noted, this is really a technical term/definition issue...
and it should not effect our functional terms.

I think 'actor' is a suitable title for our generic 'Named-thing'.

As I read the diagram, it does not say that 'actor' is the specific XML
tag-name of a litigant or judge or attorney or witness... 

The diagram only says that 'whatever you want to call it', if your object
has a 'name' and behaves 'like a Named-thing' then it should conform to the
defined data-format of 'person', 'organization', or 'property', which are
all sub-types of 'actor'.


Honestly, it makes perfect sense to me.. and I think that it is a step in
the right direction.
- Shane



Technical comment concerning given diagram:

i) Correct me if I am wrong: I think 'SuperObject', 'Actor', 'Person',
'Organization', and 'Property' are all intended to be "abstract objects" -
they only define data structure that other objects can inherit (borrow,
mimic, adhere to).  Whereas 'citizen', 'official', and 'subject' are
*examples* of 'actor' objects that *could* be invented and implemented in
the various LegalXML API sub-groups. 

ii) The inheritance arrows between 'actor' and 'person / organization /
property' seem incorrect (the inheritence arrows point BOTH ways.).  Correct
me if I am wrong: I think the designers intend for 'person', 'organization',
and 'property' to inherit from 'actor'. (arrows would be pointed only
towards 'actor')


----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC