Re: [ebxml-bp] re: (tq761) isLegallyBinding Feedback

[David RR Webber <david@drrw.info>]

Monica,

I'm liking even more the idea of renaming the flag to - hasLegalIntent - 
and then having a optional URL - hasLegalIntentURL - that points to 
either HTML or XML that provides some linkage around what that intent 
may involve.  This would allow people to use legalXML  in that URL as 
they see fit, or another mechanism as appropriate to their need.

Do people concur, or violent disagree?

Also - we could think about adding a parent element -  <btaLegalIntent> 
or similar - since we may find this is something that expands out in 
future and so we'd have that flexibility...

Thanks, DW

Monica J. Martin wrote:

>
>> mm1: Dr. Laurence Leff, LegalXML, provided these references back to 
>> us on our discussion on isLegallyBinding.  If you look at these 
>> references, our discussion and potential resolution is similar to 
>> other approaches identified (see Dr. Leff's references below). It 
>> appears on first glance that the key is to allow a pointer to guiding 
>> principles.  I have also asked Dr. Leff to indicate if MIT published 
>> a report on their previous eCommerce effort. Thank you. 
>
>
> mm2: Everyone, sorry for a second transmittal but I did find another 
> set of references from the eCommerce related links provided that also 
> touches on digital signatures. It provides references from ICC 
> (international) and other state resolutions (US) such as State of 
> Viriginia. See: Legal electronic records
> http://www.webcom.com/pjones/digital.html.
>
> I hope we will be able to get more information from this team and 
> Jamie Clark just as background information to finalize our decisions. 
> Thank you.
>
>