[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [legalxml-comment] RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - StartingPoint?
I am not sure where one would find a compendium of technical efforts since there has been an explosion of XML standards and your question seems to extend beyond even XML itself. If I come across such a listing or group of listings, I will make an effort to send them to you in a private email. What might add another dimension to your work is an identification of the cultural, linguistic and legal commonalities which support the realization of a global (transnational) dispute resolution web. These common features, if properly identified and classified, could help establish a basis for XML standards which, as a practical matter, could also help bring about or accelerate efforts towards transnational dispute resolution. I think such an identification of common factors is related to the question which Rolly Chambers first posed. I look forward to reviewing your article. Best regards. John Messing Chair, E-Filing Committee Science and Technology Section American Bar Association Chair, eNotary TC LegalXML-Oasis ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: jkeane <email@example.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 18:00:34 -0400 >Ben, thanks for query and interest in solving this data model issue >globally. >There is an engaging discussion on the CourtFiling list right now on a >discrepancy between the use of Actor and Person and the different roles they >play in any legal proceeding. It turns out Criminal Justice Data Dictionary >is not using the same terms and approaches it a bit differently. > >Just within LegalXML and OASIS space, is there a comparable set of >relationships in ebXML work? The central point of my thesis is that we >should be able to move seamlessly from a legal transaction to dispute >resolution, whether by ADR, Civil or Criminal process. > >Ben, are you in touch with anyone in Singapore who can join the dialogue? >They certainly have been very active in electronic courts and ADR. > >Jim > >PS. I added the ABA ODR list to this thread. in. What's the nature of the >ICArbitration yahoo group? >James I. Keane JKeane.Law.Pro > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ben Davis [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] >Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:40 PM >To: 'jkeane'; 'Rolly Chambers'; email@example.com; >'ICArbitration@yahoogroups.com' >Cc: Legalxml-Comment (E-mail); LegalXML (Mail) (E-mail) >Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point? >This is a very interesting note suggesting cross-overs at this time. I >wonder if the technical efforts in Singapore Courts would be relevant to >this. I also wonder if anyone is aware of a place where there is a list of >the various types of technical efforts like these that are or may be going >on in the four corners of the world. I am writing an article tentatively >titled "Connecting Worldwide: The Seamless Dispute Resolution Web" and this >type of development in various corners of the world is part of what I am >looking at and thinking about in addition to legal developments. > >Best regards, >Ben Davis >Benjamin Davis >Associate Professor >Texas Wesleyan University School of Law >1515 Commerce Street >Fort Worth, Texas 76102 >Tel.: 1 817 212 3915 >Fax: 1 817 212 3965 >E-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org > -----Original Message----- > From: jkeane [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:32 AM > To: 'Rolly Chambers'; firstname.lastname@example.org > Cc: Legalxml-Comment (E-mail); LegalXML (Mail) (E-mail) > Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point? > > > Rolly Chambers (who is now co-chairing the eFiling committee of the ABA >Science & Technology Section with fellow LegalXML stalwart, John Messing) >asked if anyone was familiar enough the OdrXML draft standard 1.0 to >determine if that work was a good starting place for this proposed OdrXML >Technical Committee. > > I'm cross posting this response to the general list as we all need to >become aware of this important effort in Europe. We also need to look at the >methodology and work product of some XML devotees who have been working in >parallel with us but without any apparent cross-overs. > > After studying their data model and scheme, let me offer some observations >from my notes - which are a work in progress. I'm am in no way making >judgments about the extensive and thoughtful work already done by the Joint >Research Centre Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup "in Association with the >European Commission." Indeed, it's very impressive and state of the art. It >is very different, however, from the path that Legal XML and particularly >the CourtFiling TC with its equally impressive work on its DTD's and >policies to date as well as its plans to migrate to a schema in release 2.0. > > Our Integrated Justice Technical Committee has taken a more parallel tack >to OdrXML, in that the folks at SEARCH and at Georgia Tech Research >Institute are developing a data model, data dictionary and a schema in >parallel with work on specific document types such as arrest reports, >warrants, charging documents and sentence/disposition documents through the >life cycle of a criminal matter. > > Please take my preliminary comments then as comparative observations and >questions on how we can harmonize this very important work out of Europe >with the efforts of Legal XML / OASIS and LEXML for global standards. > > JK Notes on OdrXML V.1.0 -- 2002.08.27 > > 1. OdrXML 1.0 uses a Schema rather than a Document Type Definition. They >have included very helpful relationship diagrams in their documentation, >although the link to the demonstration did not work when I checked it last. >This whole approach is a step ahead of some of the work in progress by the >Court Filing TC which is planning to move to a schema. It parallels the >Integrated Justice TC's current work on a Data Model. > > 2. We all need to look carefully at the OdrXML data model to consider >using this approach as our development framework. Several IT folks in the >various Legal XML workgroups have strongly advocated this approach rather >than just building stand-alone DTD's and Schema for individual documents and >waiting for a horizontal workgroup to reconcile differences. > > 3. The OdrXML data model is case-centric. It describes a case rather than >a document (a related attribute of a document in the model) -- or a >court-filing envelope. This is a different approach than we have used, but >we need some reactions from from the data modeling experts at Georgia Tech >Research Institute and others to assess the OdrXML model and how we can >merge, converge, build on their work or unravel some of the choices each of >us have made in taking divergent paths towards the similar goals. > > 4. The ODR XML data model and schema includes an interesting transmission >element. A document can include: "xsd:element name='transmissionMedia" >type="TransmissionMediaEnum" with a list of MIME types to distinguish >between image formats, document formats, clear text etc". > > The Legal XML Court Filing Group has had a robust debate on keeping a >clear separation between the transmission envelope and the underlying >document. The ODR XML model needs clarification to determine if considers >making transmission an underlying component in a Case or document [or a >separate envelope which could transmit a bundle of documents and exhibits.] >The semantics on this point get even more interesting with their definition >of a "case" as "the overall envelope for all information in a dispute." >Given the meaning of the "envelope" concept in Court Filing, we need to find >a mutually agreeable alternative term such as a "container." More >importantly we need to compare and reconcile our data models. > > 5. The primary players or actors in the OdrXML data model are Parties >(Claimant, Respondent), Moderator (Case Officer, Mediator, Arbitrator) and >Specialist (Witness, Translator, Expert). Based on some recent work in >developing a virtual dispute resolution platform with VirtualCourthouse, we >used a more encompassing term "Neutral, " which was strongly suggested by a >number of US ADR providers. > > Our development team also made further distinctions between types of >Cases. We added "Neutral Case Evaluation" and "Settlement Conference," for >example. The concept of a facilitated settlement conference with the >neutral being more proactive than a mediator becomes quite pointed when we >realized that a judges in Chambers acts as neutral too. In addition, at >least in the US, many courts have mandatory ADR with a judge or court clerk >who refers cases, monitors them and may receive status reports. Any overall >model may need more players, actors or "Personas" the terms used in the >OdrXML model. > > The OdrXML model is very understandably focused on European Community type >eCommece disputes. As we delve deeper into this work, we need to generalize >the data model to be more inclusive of other types of disputes such as >domestic relations, AAA, securities arbitration, etc. > > Looking at this whole data model afresh, makes me want to visit an even >broader data model that follows commercial transactions through their full >life cycle from bid, offer, contract, performance, dispute, litigation. The >Integrated Justice folks have addressed more document types in the life >cycle of an incident, an arrest, a warrant, a charging document and sentence >disposition. The missing element that the OdrXML data model raises in a >"case." That gets us into law firm, agency and court Case Management >Systems. > > The great American Naturalist John Muir has observed:"Whenever I pick up a >small piece of nature, I find it is connected to the rest of the universe." >The work on OdrXML reflects a part of the life cycle of legal matters. In >part response to Rolly's question then, this is a good place to begin, >particularly if we connect it "to the rest of the universe" and parallel >work by other LegalXML TC's. > > My compliments to the Joint Research Center for their clarifying work. > > And to all, please join the OdrXML TC or or other TC's so we can connect >with the rest of the global XML community. > > Jim Keane > ViceChair > LegalXML/Oasis Steering Committee > > JKeane.Law.Pro > <Litigation Systems> > North Potomac Maryland USA > 301-948-4062 F: 301-947-9159 > www.jkeane.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rolly Chambers [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:47 AM > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point? > > > From Karl Best's initial message creating this discussion list, I realize >the scope is "to explore the formation of an Online Dispute Resolution >Technical Committee" - something I'm in favor of and am willing to join in >as a TC member. > > I also understand from Karl's message that the idea is for an ODR TC (if >formed) to "build from relevant work done previously by the Joint Research >Centre Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup in association with the European >Commission." An OdrXML draft standard ( Version 0.1 ) is available at >http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM000000000 >000118C. Additional and more general information about ODR is also available >at >http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM000000000 >000000D. > > Is anyone familiar enough with the OdrXML draft standard 0.1 to have a >view whether it would be an appropriate starting point for an ODR TC to >build from? I've looked at the OdrXML 0.1 draft standard, but haven't >studied it. I certainly don't have any opinion whether it would be a good >starting point for an ODR TC. I'm interested to hear what views others may >have. > > Rolly Chambers > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC