I agree with Ken’s point that for someone citing specifically to the dissenting or concurring opinion it would be better to have the author. However, it wouldn’t be entirely necessary so I’m not sure how that
balances out. It would certainly be helpful to include it.
FYI – I will attend the conference call but have laryngitis from allergies so won’t be talking much because you probably won’t be able to hear me. Are we using the chat function like we normally do for main TC
calls?
Best,
Kris
From: legalcitem-courts@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalcitem-courts@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Hirsh, Kenneth (hirshkh)
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 11:25 AM
To: legalcitem-courts@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalcitem-courts] Thoughts on today's assignment:
Good day all,
Regarding the data elements, I raise the question whether we should include an item for the name of the document author. This may be a crucial bit of data in the case of a dissenting or concurring opinion, if that is the only item being
cited from a case. For majority opinions, it is surplusage for purposes of resolving a citation, but it may be useful otherwise.
Regarding the nomenclature for what we in the U.S. typically call a docket number, I have no idea whether that has a different name in other countries. If we want a more generic name, I suggest “internal case identifier” or “local jurisdiction
case identifier.”
Talk to you this afternoon.
Ken
Kenneth J. Hirsh
Director of the Law Library and I.T.
Professor of Practice
University of Cincinnati College of Law
(513) 556-0159
