[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [legalxml-comment] RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] Proposed Charter forOdrXML Technical Committee (1.0)
nothing attached. ----- Original Message ----- From: "jkeane" <jik@jkeane.com> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:42 PM 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 > <http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM00000000 > 0000118C> . Additional and more general information about ODR is also > available at > http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM000000000 > 000000D > <http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM00000000 > 0000000D> . > > 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