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


As i understand it "party" is being identified from the  federal court's perspective as anyone or an entity associated with the case...  

party is a recognized legal term...    

an actor = one who does something... 
a role = a function assumed by someone...

are these terms used commonly by state, local courts/law enforcement??
thanks diane


-----Original Message-----
From: Poindexter, Gary W [mailto:gpoindexter@kpmg.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 1:08 PM
To: 'Durham, Shane (LNG-CL)'; Court Filing List
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object


Seems like an attribute for Actor/Party could provide the delineation
between participant and non-participant.

If we delineate, how is the relativity maintained as an event is
adjudicated? A judge is not a participant in an arrest but is a participant
in a the case that results from the arrest. Or does this matter because the
subject of the exchange changes and therefore the actor/party and their role
changes with the type and conditions of the exchange?

gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Durham, Shane (LNG-CL) [mailto:Shane.Durham@lexisnexis.com]
Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 12:54 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>


*****************************************************************************
The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged.
It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else
is unauthorized. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice
contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in
the governing KPMG client engagement letter.         
*****************************************************************************


----------------------------------------------------------------
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