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

["Ann L. MacNaughton" <a.macnaughton_brune@sbcglobal.net>]

Jim,

 

Here where?  I am en route the Fall Council Meeting of the State Bar of Texas ADR Section, and will be delivering the attached report. If I can find the charter document you reference, I will include it for discussion today and tomorrow, hopefully with feedback to you (by someone) before I leave Monday to Nepal (back 10/21).

 

Ann

----- Original Message -----

From: "jkeane" <jik@jkeane.com>

Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:42 PM

Subject: 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
> 
>