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

[Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>]

Daniel Greenwood wrote:
> The word "clause" gave trouble to participants from other
> jurisdictions where it carried additional layers of meaning, as I
> recall the conversations on our last couple of calls and perhaps
> earlier.  

That's correct. Speaking as a lawyer, I'd be inclined to use "Clause" 
for the top-level container (ie what we are using "Article" to refer to).

But I wouldn't contradict anyone who pointed to text at _any_ of the 
lower levels and called it a sub-clause.

I think Rolly explained that American lawyers have it below 
Paragarph/SubParagraph.

 > Does anybody recall the details on why we were inclined to
 > shy away from the term "clause"?
 >

So its not clear which level should get the "Clause" label.

Clause is a general term which is why it is fine to talk of "clauses", 
"clause library", "clause model" etc.

Having said all that, I'm fine with using the word as the label for one 
of the levels if everyone else is.  Let's just agree on the labels!