RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues

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

In my experience, Peter is correct about a mixed paper and electronic
environment. I think for an extended period, even where processes are
"purely" electronic, a digitized representation of a manual signature
will be expected to appear on printed version of an electronic
original. Without it, some people will not trust the contract, even if
the authentic signature is electronic. Therefore, I support the
signature block notion, including the signature line.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues
> From: "Chambers, Rolly" <rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>
> Date: Mon, August 16, 2004 9:33 pm
> To: pmeyer@elkera.com.au, "John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
> Cc: "Legalxml-Econtracts TC" <legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> I'm thinking of the signature block as the portion of a paper contract that often contains typed information about the signers (e.g. name, contact info, title or position of the person signing on behalf of an organization, date signed, etc.) This info is useful but seldom if ever appears elsewhere in the contract document. Thus, I think it should be provided for in an eContracts schema.
> 
> I'm not thinking of signature block as just the signature line, where manual wet signatures are applied to paper contract documents. To me digital signatures in the electronic world are a closer counterpart to wet signatures in the paper world. 
> 
> I have been assuming that we will need to address at a later stage how digital signatures or an equivalent will be applied to eContracts in the context of a fully electronic workflow. However, as Peter correctly points out, my draft use case does not directly cover this, but simply observes that currently the parties to construction contracts sign a paper copy once they have agreed on the contract wording. 
> 
> Rolly Chambers
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Peter Meyer [mailto:pmeyer@elkera.com.au]
> Sent:	Mon 8/16/2004 11:26 PM
> To:	John Messing
> Cc:	Legalxml-Econtracts TC
> Subject:	RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues
> Dear John,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2004 12:52 PM
> > To: pmeyer@elkera.com.au
> > Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] XHTML 2.0 issues
> >
> >
> > I take it means that area of a contract where in a paper environment
> > manual wet signatures would be applied. Assuming a workflow that is
> > fully electronic, how do you justify retaining this block?
> >
> 
> Yes, the need for signature block markup is based on paper contracts and wet
> signatures.
> 
> I don't accept that our standard can or should be confined to a fully
> electronic workflow which occurs in only limited segments of the contracts
> universe (web based online transactions etc where there is rarely, if ever,
> negotiation over the contract narrative).
> 
> It will be interesting to see what other use cases bring forward but so far,
> Rolly's and mine indicate exclusively paper based contract systems with "wet
> signatures".
> 
> Signature block markup is essential to deal with large parts of the
> contracts universe as it is today. Clearly, in fully electronic workflow
> situations and in shrink wrap printed contract situations, the signature
> block will be irrelevant. That does not mean it should not be part of our
> schema.
> 
> regards
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_workgroup.php.