RE: [legalxml-intjustice] Groups - SentenceOrderModel.jpg uploaded

["Scott Came" <scott@justiceintegration.com>]

Thanks, Gary.  Helpful comments.  I'll defer to Robin and Catherine on the
business issues, but I do have a few thoughts...

Re #2...  You definitely wouldn't want to make "roles" into subclasses. 
Roles should be handled by association, not by inheritance.  The name of
an association between two objects may have little to do with the objects'
types.  In the schemas and in the model diagram, we do identify the roles
by naming the associations (e.g., prosecutor, defense attorney,
subject/defendant, etc.)

Re #3...  As the diagram (and schemas) suggest, the subject (GJXDM term
for defendant on a sentence) is a Party, which has two possible types
(Person or Organization.)  So this seems to fit what you're suggesting.

Re #4...  I believe we concluded that the plaintiff on cases that result
in a sentence order would always be "the state" or "the people", which
seemed to us to be an Organization.  That's what is indicated in the model
diagram.  (Unfortunately, it's difficult to represent this in the schema.)
 Robin & Catherine...am I recalling correctly?

Re #5:  The issuer represented in the model & schemas is intended to be
the judicial officer (usually judge) who actually orders the service, not
the person who shows up at the recipient's doorstep and hands them the
paper.  We concluded that message recipients would not care who the police
officer was who served the notice on the defendant/subject.

Re #6:  The recipient represented in the model & schemas is intended to be
the human being who actually receives the notice, and so the association
is to Person, not Party.

Keep in mind that the different arrows mean different things.  The "open"
arrows (e.g., the one connecting SentenceOrderDocument to SentenceOrder)
represent navigable associations (represented in schema by hierarchical
element containment), while the closed arrows (e.g., the one connecting
Verdict to Finding) represents inheritance.

Re conditions being descriptions...  This is the usual dilemma between
specifying things precisely while at the same time allowing flexibility. 
In cases where it would be difficult to specify all the possible
situations, we decided to leave things general...represented in many cases
by a "description".  Perhaps we should look at places in the model where
this may not be a good idea.  One intermediate option would be to use
<xsd:any> to allow anything from GJXDM to be included as a substructure
under things like condition.

Re financial obligations tying to a "payment recipient"...this seems like
a good idea.  Absent objection from Robin, Catherine, or Tom, I will
include it.

Thanks again for the comments, Gary.
--Scott

> Comments concerning Party (upper left quadrant of the diagram):
>
> 1) It seems that Party can be of type Person, Organization, Judicial
Official or Enforcement Officer
> 2) Subclasses of Party would be plaintiff, defendant, prosecuting
attorney, defense attorney, (victim, witness, etc, etc)
> 3) Defendant can be of type Person or Organization [In some
jurisdictions organizations receive citations for such things as
building code and health code violations. Therefore we have to assume
that there will be some type of financial or business sanction issued
against them that does not include incarceration, but can include
financial obligations or the inability to continue to do business until
certain conditions are met.]
> 4) Plaintiff can be any of the Party types.
> 5) A "Service Notice" issuer would be a judicial official (or
enforcement officer?).
> 6) A Service Notice recipient would be a party/defendant.
>
> If others agree that the above is true, the arrows in the diagram need
to be redrawn.
>
> Are others comfortable with "conditions" being a description? Seems to
me that we are losing a great deal of detail that would be valuable. For
example, a condition that the subject of a sentence is to vacate a home
or business and not travel within some distance of the home or business
is common. The address of the home or business should be provided in
detail. Measures (i.e. distance) are specified in detail in most other
constructs, why not in conditions?
>
> Financial Obligations: If payments are to be made to a victim or
witness, shouldn't there be a connection between financial obligation or
payment to party to indicate who will receive the payment?
>
> gary poindexter
> BearingPoint

> ***************************************************************************************************
> The information in this email is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  Access to this email by anyone other than the intended
addressee is unauthorized.  If you are not the intended recipient of
this message, any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, retention,
or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is
prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient,
please reply to or forward a copy of this message to the sender and
delete the message, any attachments, and any copies thereof from your
system.
> ***************************************************************************************************