Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Proposal: One container per level in the clause hierarchy (was Re:[legalxml-econtracts] Caption Numbers)

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

I say a single distinct label per level for the sake of sanity.

John Messing

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>
Date:  Tue, 15 Apr 2003 12:16:19 +1000

>Hi John and all
>
>This email suggests that we need to come to a decision on whether a 
>single distinct label per level is what our hierarchy should be providing.
>
>Please see below... what do others think?
>
>cheers,
>
>Jason
>
>John McClure wrote:
>:
>> Hi Jason,
>> I wasn't proposing 7 levels where "anything is allowed anywhere else".... seems
>> your calculation of "720 templates" is based on a misunderstanding of my
>> proposal. Let me try calculating a more realistic number of templates -- because
>> it IS a good question -- that is based on the DC proposal of Section, Clause,
>> and Para, within which are SubSection, SubClause, and SubPara, respectively. As
>> mentioned, the DC proposal allows the Clause and Para within a Contract, and
>> allows a Para within a Section.
>> 
>> Contract Section
>> Contract Section Clause
>> Contract Section Clause SubClause
>> Contract Section Clause SubClause Para
>> Contract Section Clause SubClause Para SubPara
>> Contract Section Clause Para SubPara
>> Contract Section Para
>> Contract Section Para SubPara
>> Contract Section SubSection
>> Contract Section SubSection Clause
>> Contract Section SubSection Clause SubClause
>> Contract Section SubSection Clause Para
>> Contract Section SubSection Clause SubClause Para
>> Contract Section SubSection Clause Para SubPara
>> Contract Section SubSection Clause SubClause Para SubPara
>> Contract Section SubSection Para
>> Contract Section SubSection Para SubPara
>> Contract Clause
>> Contract Clause SubClause
>> Contract Clause Para
>> Contract Clause Para SubPara
>> Contract Clause SubClause Para
>> Contract Clause SubClause Para SubPara
>> Contract Para
>> Contract Para SubPara
>> 
>> So there are only 25 templates, not 720! 
>
>Thanks for setting out the possibilities you allows.
>
>Some assumptions/clarifications before I comment:
>
>1. In the teleconf we have only be talking about the clause model so 
>far, ie the bit that follows your front matter and precedes your back 
>matter, so in what follows I'll focus on that.
>
>2. I'm not sure whether we are talking at cross purposes or not .. in 
>the clause model that the TC decided tentatively to run with at the last 
>teleconf, we only specified the names of the _containers_ at each level. 
>  I'm presuming the container at each level (eg Article, Section etc) 
>can contain multiple paragraphs of text, and/or the next level down 
>container.
>
>	I expect those "multiple paragraphs of text" would each have the same 
>name irrespective of their level.  Call it <p> for the moment.
>
>
>	Now, I am assuming that none of your Section, SubSection, Clause, 
>SubClause, Para, or SubPara correspond to the <p> which would be 
>available in the model I have in mind.  Is this correct?
>
>3. So the remainder of this message is based on the understanding that 
>each of your Section, SubSection, Clause, SubClause, Para, and SubPara 
>is a container, which can contain <p> (presumably more than one).
>
>Now, my comment:
>
>So, now, going back to just the clause model (rather than front and back 
>matter as well), your top level element (lets call it level 1) is 
>Section ..  but at level 2, you have Clause Para and SubSection.
>
>Why can't we just have a single label for level 2 (like Word, dare i say 
>it?).
>
>I don't understand _at all_ why there is any need for three different 
>labels for whatever block appears at level 2.  Could you please explain? 
>  How does an author make his/her choice between them? What does the 
>trainer teach?
>
>Put another way, you have SubPara at levels 3, 4, 5, and 6.  This 
>potentially means mapping a SubPara to 4 different styles. What is the 
>attaction of this?
>
>> Of course, an organization
>> standardizing on a particular document structure could trim this number down
>> pretty fast  (eg note that 36% of these are for structures that include a rarely
>> used "SubSection")
>
>How do they standardise on a particular document structure when the DTD 
>allows multiple structures?  The DTD should standardise the structure!
>
>What they need to standardise (and currently do standardise) is the 
>style applied to that structure.  And we can and really should make this 
>as simple as possible.
>
>> but the structure IS there for those who have the need. Now,
>> please know that I don't subscribe to Sub1Para, Sub2Para, and so on... those are
>> a recipe for user confusion to me... I suggest more common, less tortured,
>> names.
>
>Call them whatever you like; just give me a single label per level.  The 
>only reason I said "Sub2Para" rather than SubParagraph2, is that the 
>latter can be confused with a reference to the second of two consecutive 
>subparagraphs (as in see paragraph 3 sub-paragraph 2).
>
>Regarding your suggestions below for the names, I want to stay out of 
>this debate.  I am perfectly happy to run with whatever names the 
>lawyers (and others) in this TC want to adopt.
>
>The only thing I strongly favour is a single label per level.
>
>Can I suggest that for now, we work with the names agreed in the last 
>teleconf, and come to a decision on whether a single label per level is 
>sufficient and preferred?
>
>Separately to that, we could then re-open the naming issue if TC members 
>wish to do so.  Perhaps the best way would be for members to cast a vote 
>in favour of one or other proposals to be made.
>
>> On the subject of names for these things. An "Article", within which you
>> designate "Section" blocks, applies to laws (and regulations?) and to other very
>> formal documents like constitutions -- I have rarely heard these terms applied
>> to a contract, but likely only because I am not a practicing attorney. The
>> common-man's definition of a Section would be something closer to a high-level
>> division of the contract, than a numbered sub-block of text. And, judging by the
>> useful statistics you gathered, I must echo your own conclusion that "Clause"
>> seems a more acceptable cross-Anglo term than "Article".....
>> 
>> So I am requesting that, for the domain of eContracts, we use the very common
>> term -- Clause -- rather than Article. We've been using the term for so many
>> years now that it seems a little strange to suddenly trash it -- I simply don't
>> understand the justification given in the FAQ..... part of our job I thought was
>> to establish an operating definition for the term, not to surrender and say that
>> it's too ambiguous for any good use. Is this something we could reconsider?
>> 
>> Regards, and a sincere thanks for your good work pulling together all the
>> requirements,
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>