RE: [legalxml-comment] RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] Proposed Charter forOdrXML Technical Committee (1.0)

[Eddie O'Brien <eddie@ringtailsolutions.com>]

Hi Jim,
 
This document seems very thorough Jim, great start. A few personal thoughts
that may help:

1.	When developing the charter I think its important to consider it to
be a living document that will develop and change. You've made a valiant
effort at completeness but you may find that you undo some elements of the
initial intention as a result. Or at least some people will focus on the
fringe issues of the TC rather than core focus. i.e. hanging the curtains
before the house is built. :)
2.	The document mentions a solution; I always think of the standards
process of facilitating an agreed structure or schema for the development of
a solution rather than a solution in itself. I see this job of creating a
solution being performed by the software developers who innovate around the
standards. 
3.	The document also discusses full life-cycle solutions.
	
4.	The outline of electronic commerce is a term that has its own, at
least for me, colloquial
<http://lookup.atomica.com/atomica2/query.pl?s=colloquial&fw=0&uid=432884519
&gwp=1&ver=2.4.2.243&ttport=0&bRegistered=1&spl=-1&wrong=coloquial&sid=>
meaning for many people i.e. financial transactions over the web. This may
be an anathema for the purposes of the TC charter.

In short I would pare it back a little to help the process of further
development via addition rather than deletion.
 
Happy to help later with syntactical changes but thought it best to first
offer my more philosophical thoughts.
 
Its an important and interesting TC.
 
Hope this is useful.
 
Regards
 
Eddie

-----Original Message-----
From: jkeane [mailto:jik@jkeane.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:42 PM
To: legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: 'Legalxml-Comment (E-mail)'; 'ABA-ODR List (E-mail)'; Ron Staudt
(E-mail); Jeff Kichaven (E-mail); Jim Melamed (E-mail); Monty Ahalt (E-mail)
Subject: [legalxml-comment] RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] Proposed Charter for
OdrXML Technical Committee (1.0)


Here is a first cut at the substance of a charter for an  OdrXML Technical
Committee as part of the OASIS Legal XML Member Section.
 
Please review and offer critiques, enhancement or changes.  I'm at the outer
limits of my bandwidth. To make this group work we will need active
participants and leaders. If there are enough believers in online dispute
resolution out there, this is the time to step up to the plate. 
 
If we can reach consensus on a charter, we will need strong volunteer
support from many quarters to achieve its objectives.
 
  
 

James I. Keane 

JKeane.Law.Pro

20 Esworthy Terrace 

North Potomac MD 20878

301-948-4062 F: 301-947-9159

 <http://www.jkeane.com/> www.jkeane.com  




 
<http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=16989703&catalog_name
=wgstore> Litigation Support Systems, 2d (WestGroup)
http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=13515516
<http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=13515516&catalog_name
=wgstore> &catalog_name=wgstore



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Debi Miller-Moore [mailto:MooreD@adr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:09 AM
To: 'jkeane'; 'Ben Davis'; 'Rolly Chambers';
legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; ICArbitration@yahoogroups.com
Cc: 'Legalxml-Comment (E-mail)'; 'LegalXML (Mail) (E-mail)'; ABA-ODR List
(E-mail); Daniel Greenwood (E-mail); Jamie Bryce (E-mail); 'David Sandborg'
Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point?


Hi everyone, 
I am Debi Miller-Moore. I added myself to the xml odr list. I head up the
Online and eCommerce Initiatives of the American Arbitration Asso.
nationally and internationally and  I live in Charlotte, NC. I  wanted to
offer up a name for a possible Singapore contact, who I am sure some of you
know.  David 
Sandborg is a Professor at University of Hong Kong, and may also know
someone in Singapore who is connected with the efiling process.  His contact
information is attached. 
 
Regards,
 
Debi Miller-Moore
 
Debi Miller-Moore 
Vice President 
eCommerce Services 
American Arbitration Asso. 
moored@adr.org 
(704) 905-1488 Cell 
(704) 347-6658 office 
(704) 347-2804 fax 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: jkeane [mailto:jik@jkeane.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 6:01 PM
To: 'Ben Davis'; 'Rolly Chambers';
legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org; ICArbitration@yahoogroups.com
Cc: 'Legalxml-Comment (E-mail)'; 'LegalXML (Mail) (E-mail)'; ABA-ODR List
(E-mail); Daniel Greenwood (E-mail); Jamie Bryce (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point?


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:bdavis@law.txwes.edu]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:40 PM
To: 'jkeane'; 'Rolly Chambers'; legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org;
'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:bdavis@law.txwes.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: jkeane [mailto:jik@jkeane.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:32 AM
To: 'Rolly Chambers'; legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.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
 <http://www.jkeane.com/>        www.jkeane.com  




 
<http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=13515516&catalog_name
=wgstore> 



-----Original Message-----
From: Rolly Chambers [mailto:rlchambers@smithcurrie.com]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:47 AM
To: legalxml-odr-discuss@lists.oasis-open.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

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>