RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object

["Lewis, Diane" <Diane.Lewis@usdoj.gov>]

please see my comment.... actor/role are terms used in system development... how do they map to current or future justice legal community transactions or business procedures or back to the actual statutes??   thanks diane lewis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bergeron, Donald L. (LNG) [mailto:Donald.Bergeron@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:31 PM
To: 'Winters, Roger'; 'Chambers, Rolly'; 'Court Filing List'
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object


I tend to agree with Roger. Actor may have been unnatural to the community
but, role as in function is very natural.
It may be needed to have a controlled set of actor/role combinations as
single things, but for other cases role is a very good fit.
 
Regards,
 
Don 

-----Original Message-----
From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:09 PM
To: 'Chambers, Rolly'; 'Court Filing List'
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object



I am still wondering why we would not try to keep it simple by agreeing that
a person or a thing can have a "role" appropriate to a certain context,
including a legal case. Although I don't know how this would be modeled
technically, I am comfortable with the notion that human beings and things,
animate or inanimate, can be said to play or have or be assigned "roles."
Some might prefer calling this a "function" rather than a "role" when
dealing with a thing, but it seems to me to amount to the same thing. Roles
and functions change with time and context. The point is to know which role
applies to the case in point and to give the person or thing the metadata
attribute naming the role within the context of the case or, more
particularly, of the court document in which it appears.

 

The context of the case should show whether it makes sense to say that a
certain role can be assigned to a person or thing. While a thing like the
Bank of America Tower could have a role of "victim" or "evidence" or
"plaintiff," it would make no sense to assign the Tower the role of "judge."


 

Rolly and others have called out a number of possible role names relevant to
court matters. Isn't the point of our work to define each distinct role
specifically enough so we could tell in a given case who has that role?
Wouldn't we all use the same tag for a given role, e.g., for "defense
attorney" defined as "legal counsel for an accused person in a criminal
matter," regardless of the title used for that role in a given place, e.g.,
"Defender," "Public Defender," "Mouthpiece," "Counsel for the Accused?"

 

A person can have, but might not have a "title" that goes with a "role" the
person is playing. The person who has the "judicial officer" role would
usually have a formal title, e.g., "Judge J. Jones," "Magistrate Barney
Fife." The person who is in the role of "victim" in a criminal matter would
not have a formal title--although the person might be referred to as "victim
Winters" to distinguish him from "victim Chambers." Later in the case, it
might be discovered that "victim Winters" is actually "perpetrator Winters,"
who would then start having other roles like "defendant," "convict,"
"inmate," and "parolee," used as appropriate in context of the series of
documents that record the proceedings and disposition of his case and
subsequent events.) 

 

If what I'm asserting is not helpful to deciding how the JXDDS Person Object
relates to what we are trying to accomplish, please say so and let's move
right along. I'm hoping, however, that we could avoid adding categories of
metadata (e.g., "Actor" or  "Citizen") that, I suspect, might not add real
value to our enterprise.

 

Roger Winters

Electronic Court Records Manager

King County
Department of Judicial Administration

516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS: KCC-JA-0609

Seattle, Washington 98104

V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906

roger.winters@metrokc.gov

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chambers, Rolly [mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com] 
Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 7:29 AM
To: Court Filing List
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