RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart docs (was (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word)

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

Roger:

I think many of us are groping our way through the issues, with
different levels of technical understanding and familiarity with
jargon. Frustration with my own lack of understanding is quite familar
to me, I can assure you.

My take on where we are is this:

ECF has developed tools to send documents between places in order to
file them. These documents have been PDF documents for the most part
that are "dumb" compared to the XML that carries them.

The mortgage industry and the land recorders have been working on the
same problem and have sophisticated tools that are different from ECF
to accomplish many of the same purposes, also using PDF's and XML
documents.

NIEM is a governmental-sponsored effort for the same transporting
purpose but at a greater level of sophistication because the tagged
terms can be associated with other tagged terms, combining the power of
them, using a technology called RDF, and with other powerful features.

I believe it is useful to settle on one basic set of building blocks,
and perhaps NIEM should be it for transport purposes. ECF seems to take
that approach. So does Enotary, at least in principle.

That still leaves the problem you have wisely directed attention to,
which is having the documents act in a smart fashion so that the
content of the PDF's doesn't have to be extracted and the data entered
by hand when they arrive at the destination.

The electronic document vendors have not been idle and have retooled
their products to make them "smart"; this is done by making the
products out of XML, instead of the proprietary formats previously used
and then displaying them using the legacy proprietary programs. This has
required turning the programs inside out, in a manner of speaking. One
consequence is that they can natively be incorporated by XML schemas,
or can communicate with the schemas, to accomplish goals without having
the awkwardness ECF has become accustomed to, for example, of embedding
the PDF's in XML. Brian just reported on how Microsoft has retooled
office products, including MS-Word to accomplish this purpose. Adobe
has been doing the same thing. 

Adobe has two advantages over MS as I see it, apart from document
security features, which are not germane to this discussion.

1. The current XML offerings can be displayed by the Adobe Reader and
Acrobat programs in both the old and new formats, making the Reader and
Acrobat programs backwards compatible. The new Office products may not
be fully backwards compatible according to what I have read.

2. Adobe PDF documents preserve pagination regardless of screen
resolution. MS-Word has not up until now. That means multiple copies of
an MS document may show different pagination on different computers even
though the same file is displayed on all of them. This shortcoming makes
discussion of a document's content, as in a court hearing with multiple
attorneys, a judge and a clerk, very difficult, because passages will
not necessarily appear on the same page as displayed on the computer
even though the identical file is used. PDF does not suffer from this
limitation.

With regard to your question about eNotary, I think the short answer is
"none of the above." The membership of enotary is largely from the
mortgage and land recording groups who are trying to solve a bottleneck
in their workflow represented by enotarization. They are confronted by
many of the same issues but until now have been solving them in
different ways from ECF. They seem to have much more knowledge about
the PDF document aspects, in large part through John Jones, who is a
representative from the land recorder industry to enotary. He works
closely with top Adobe engineers.

I think each group, ecf and enotary, can learn much from each other
about the practical solutions to common problems that cut across legal
domains, provided there is a willingness to do so, which may require
letting go of legacy notions of turf.

I hope this is helpful.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] FW: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) :
> Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word
> From: "Winters, Roger" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>
> Date: Fri, January 12, 2007 5:40 pm
> To: "John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>, "Hickman,Brian"
> <Brian.Hickman@wolterskluwer.com>
> Cc: <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>, "O'Brien,Robert"
> <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>
> 
> TO: All
> 
> It will be interesting to explore these possibilities. I have trouble
> deciphering acronyms I've never heard of and I keep hoping that sometime
> they will come to light and the basic ideas will be expressed so I can
> understand them. What are the pros and cons of one approach vs. another?
> What are the business consequences or assumptions behind using one or
> another? For example, is the idea about using this in E-Notarization
> based on assumptions about notaries, attorneys, people in general, or is
> it coming entirely from scientific technical reasons that can't be
> controversial? Are there religious issues behind the approaches? (e.g.,
> in Notarization is there a religious conservatism that calls for things
> to resemble "traditional" approaches, or is that not an issue?) Will
> this flavor of PDF work until Adobe clamps down in some future time and
> takes free PDF reading away? A zillion questions come to mind for those
> of us who are not adept at acronym-eze or tech-speak. 
> 
> I don't ask these questions seeking specific answers or defenses of
> positions - I am too ignorant of all of this to have a position yet. I
> ask them only to illustrate that we continue to have among us all a
> language barrier. It does not seem to be a problem for those who are so
> technically advanced that acronyms spill from their tongues as they
> enthrall other technically advanced folks with brilliant new
> possibilities. It is a problem when those of us who would love to
> understand the possibilities find ourselves hopelessly lost because they
> seem only to be speaking in tongues in which we have no experience. It
> is not at all insulting to "dumb it down" for others.
> 
> That raises another consideration - if ECFTC does not make a certain
> attainment of technical expertise a requirement for participation, is it
> therefore a requirement that the rest engage in "dumbing it down" for
> the rest? Who must take pains to bridge the communication gap? And it is
> a gap and there is pain involved in trying to guess, beg for answers,
> preach against acronyms, etc. How can we work together if we do not find
> the bridges and translations needed to understand one another? Could XML
> come to our rescue by some "schema" (still not sure I can explain that
> idea to others) that processes the terms somehow so that a "dummies"
> version is generated as well?
> 
> Did I miss the prerequisite classes that everyone else took and aced?
> 
> Happy MLK Weekend!
> 
> Roger
> 
> Roger Winters
> Program and Project Manager
> and
> Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator
> King County
> Department of Judicial Administration
> 516 Third Ave. E-609 MS:KCC-JA-0609
> Seattle, WA 98104
> V: (206) 296-7838
> F: (206) 296-0906
> roger.winters@metrokc.gov
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:24 PM
> To: Hickman,Brian
> Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; O'Brien,Robert
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] FW: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) :
> Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word
> 
> An alternative is Adobe's XFA format which enables XML schema's to
> generate PDF layout documents. It is ideal for form-based documents.
> This likely will be the document format structure that eNotary will use
> for the layout of its form-based notary certificates, jurats and
> acknowledgements.
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] FW: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) :
> > Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word
> > From: "Hickman, Brian" <Brian.Hickman@wolterskluwer.com>
> > Date: Fri, January 12, 2007 4:53 pm
> > To: <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>, "O'Brien,Robert"
> > <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>
> > 
> > After reading Roger Winters and John Messing's posts on embedding
> > structured and unstructured content in a pleading I thought I would
> ask
> > Microsoft's XML team to recommend a method to add structured / machine
> > readable content to an MS Word document that also contains
> unstructured
> > / narrative content.  
> > 
> > I am forwarding Microsoft's response for your review.
> > 
> > Brian Hickman 
> > Attorney
> > Government Relations
> > CT
> > 
> > 
> > 520 Pike Street, Suite 2610
> > Seattle, WA 98101 
> > 206 622 4511 (tel)
> > 206 437 1766 (mobile)
> > brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Brian Jones (OFFICE) [mailto:brijones@exchange.microsoft.com] 
> > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 1:30 PM
> > To: Adam Wiener; Michael Champion; Hickman, Brian; Steven Goulet; Doug
> > Mahugh; Gray Knowlton
> > Subject: RE: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and
> > unstructured content in MS Word
> > 
> > Hi Brian,
> > The model in both Word 2003 and 2007 is to allow you to add your
> custom
> > XML markup to a Word document so that it lives alongside the
> formatting
> > and layout information.
> > The validation occurs on your schema on its own, even though there is
> > also WordprocessingML whenever you save the file.
> > 
> > It's recommended that you leverage the Word structures as much as
> > possible, and only add your own XML markup for persisting semantics
> that
> > can't be captured with the Word model.
> > I would also suggest learning more about the new content controls
> > feature in Word 2007. This allows you to add more structure on top of
> > your Word documents. There is a series of blog posts on the Word blog
> > that cover this, and I just recently blogged about the post that
> covers
> > mapping custom XML to content controls:
> >
> http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/01/10/the-power-of-data-v
> > iew-separation-in-your-documents.aspx
> > 
> > 
> > -Brian
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Wiener
> > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:13 PM
> > To: Adam Wiener; Michael Champion; brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com;
> > Brian Jones (OFFICE); Steven Goulet; Doug Mahugh; Gray Knowlton
> > Subject: RE: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and
> > unstructured content in MS Word
> > 
> > Adding Doug and Gray as well... XML Bloggers on bcc...
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Adam
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam Wiener
> > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:32 AM
> > To: Michael Champion; brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com; Xml Team
> > Bloggers; Brian Jones (OFFICE); Steven Goulet
> > Subject: RE: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and
> > unstructured content in MS Word
> > 
> > Looping in Brian Jones and Steven Goulet...
> > 
> > Can you please take a look at Mr. Hickman's question below?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Adam
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Champion
> > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:29 PM
> > To: brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com; Xml Team Bloggers
> > Subject: RE: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and
> > unstructured content in MS Word
> > 
> > Thanks for your inquiry.  The people on this list are not Word
> experts,
> > so I'll try to find someone in the Office team who can answer.  (Or,
> if
> > one of you on the XML team does know the answer, feel free to chime
> in!)
> > 
> > I know that you can edit documents that conform to a custom schema in
> > Word 2003 and 2007.
> > http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/01/25/517739.aspx
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/03/11/XMLFiles/
> > 
> >  I don't know about mixing structured (custom schema) and unstructured
> > (default Word schema) in one doc, however, if that is what you are
> > asking.   Please let me know if you don't hear back from someone in
> > Office in a timely manner and I'll try to follow up.
> > 
> > Mike Champion
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com
> > [mailto:brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:42 PM
> > > To: Xml Team Bloggers
> > > Subject: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and
> > unstructured
> > > content in MS Word
> > > Importance: High
> > >
> > >
> > > I am a member of OASIS LegalXML's Electronic Court Filing Technical
> > Committee
> > > and an attorney with CT Corporation.  The  goal of the technical
> > committee is
> > > to develop standards to file documents electronically with courts.
> > Today,
> > > most documents produced by the legal industry are produced in MS
> Word.
> > > Unfortunately, today, a human must read the document at the
> courthouse
> > to
> > > extract data from the document to populate the court's case
> management
> > system.
> > > My question is:  Can we integrate content that conforms to a custom
> > data model
> > > into MS Word such that structured content and unstructured content
> can
> > reside
> > > in the same document?  If the case management system could extract
> > content
> > > from an MS Word file that conformed to a customize data model (i'm
> > thinking
> > > along the lines of adding an MS Scheme that matched the court's
> > requirements)
> > > then an automated process could extract data directly from the MS
> Word
> > file.
> > >
> > > If you look at a legal pleading you will see that some sections of
> the
> > > document are structured and conform to a data model that conforms to
> a
> > set of
> > > rules expressed by the court in narrative format and some parts of
> the
> > > document are almost unstructured, such a a paragraph of narrative.
> > >
> > > What approach would you recommend to allow attorneys to use the tool
> > they are
> > > familiar with, MS Word, and still embed some machine readable
> content
> > within
> > > the MS Word document?
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > >
> > > Brian Hickman
> > > ----------------------------------
> > > This message was generated from a contact form at:
> > > http://blogs.msdn.com/xmlteam/default.aspx
> > > It was submitted by Brian Hickman (brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com)
> > >
> > > Your contact information was not shared with the user.