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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-econtracts message

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


Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] hierarchical clause model?


Jason,

You wrote:

> Can these other relationships be captured in meta data or our "Legal
> Markup"?

This gets to my point.  It seems odd to have some of the relationships
represented in the 'hierarchical clause model' of the document and to
have other relationships represented elsewhere. Putting all of the
relationship in one place seems to be a bit more consistent -- and
argues for a 'flat' description and a separate description of all of the
relationships.

Do people have thoughts on this?

-Dave

Dave Marvit
Fujitsu
dave@marvit.org



> cheers,
> 
> Jason
> 
> Dave Marvit wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Just a quick question from a non-lawyer...
> >
> > When people talk about representing contracts hierarchically, is
that an
> > adequate method to express the dependancies between 'blocks'? It
sees to
> > me that the relationships would be much more complex than the simple
> > parent / child / sibling relationships implied by hierarchy.
> >
> > Dave Marvit
> > Fujitsu labs America
> > dave@marvit.org
> >
> > On Monday, April 7, 2003, at 11:30  AM, Rolly Chambers wrote:
> >
> >> Jason -
> >>
> >> I continue to favor the "Hierarchically Named Blocks" approach, but
> >> within
> >> that approach I can live with any reasonable naming conventions.
Based
> on
> >> your research, it might be prudent to consider an approach that
> >> accommodates
> >> the differences between US and UK/AU terminology for contract
> >> "structures,"
> >> perhaps something like:  Article / Clause or Section / Paragraph.
> >>
> >> As far as lower levels below "Paragraph" are concerned, I'd favor
> >> "Subparagraphs." This is just a preference, however.
> >>
> >> Rolly Chambers
> >>
> >>> Summary of Discussion points
> >>> ----------------------------
> >>>
> >>> 1. There appears to be support in U.S.A. for "Hierarchically Named
> >>> Blocks" which start Article, Section, Paragraph.  (I believe this
> >>> hierarchy was suggested by Rolly in July or August 2000.  Rolly's
> >>> hierarchy continued with Subparagraphs and Clauses)
> >>>
> >>> 2. Elsewhere than the U.S.A (I looked at UK and Australia) there
is
> >>> little support for 'article'. In Australia, we tend to use
'clause' to
> >>> refer to the blocks irrespective of their level in the hierarchy,
but
> >>> will also occasionally use a top level of 'Part'.
> >>>
> >>> 3. So assuming Article/Section/Paragraph is acceptable to US
lawyers,
> >>> the question is whether other jurisdictions could live with it as
> well?
> >>>
> >>> 4. If we did run with Article/Section/Paragraph, what would we
call
> the
> >>> lower levels, and how many lower levels would be necessary?
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Jason Harrop
> CTO, SPEEDLEGAL
> jharrop@speedlegal.com
> 
> Melbourne
> Mob +61 (0)402 02 66 34
> Tel +61 (0)3 9670 0141
> Fax +61 (0)3 9670 0142
> www.speedlegal.com
> 
> SmartPrecedent(R) software
> The most intelligent way to create documents




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