XForms (was Re: [legalxml-econtracts] Structural Markup Model RecommendationsReport)

[Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>]

Hello John

Thanks for your kind words

Re XForms, just wanted to flag that i think XForms offers quite a 
compelling model for how we might relate the actual words of the 
contract (our structural aka clause model) to the extra non-structural 
stuff we might want to say about it.

XForms suggests a user choose a non-structural schema which suits 
his/her problem domain (think real estate, construction, sale of goods, 
banking or whatever), and relate slots in that schema to the words of 
the contract via XPath "bindings".

Very flexible and very powerful - I think we should explore this further 
as a possible solution to an important part of our non-structural 
requirements.

FYI, Infopath and Adobe's XML/PDF forms solution employ a similar idea.

cheers,

Jason



jmessing wrote:
> Congratulations to Jason, Peter, and all other participants in this draft for a comprehensive and thoughtful document. While the devil is always in the implementation details, I find nothing in the document that leaps out at me as inconsistent or an impediment to the practice of transactional or courtroom law as I have come to understand such activities over the years.
> 
> As one word of caution, the Xforms standard has just become a W3C recommendation. Inasmuch as many contracts are form contracts, I highly recommend thought be given to how an econtracts standard could interface with Xforms. See http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-xforms-20031014/
> 
> As an aside, the US Patent Office is now using XML for online submissions of Patent applications, which may also provide insights to any LegalXML group. See generally http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/efs/index.html
> 
> Best regards to all.
>