[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object
As I interpret the proposal and the proposed person model: A PersonType can be a witness, victim, judge, suspect (role) type. An OrganizationType "Is A" victim or suspect or crime scene type; and a PlaceType "Is A" crime scene or victim type. This means that we define our documents (SuperObject) as people, organizations and places. Is this the model we want for justice documents? What if a document type (arrest report, court filing, warrant, ad museaum) is made up of ("Has-A") witness, judge, victim, crime scene, etc (roles/types)? In this model a VictimType "Is-A" PersonType, OrganizationType or PlaceType. A WitnessType "Is-A" PersonType. A CrimeSceneType "Is-A" OrganizationType or PlaceType. The second approach allows us to define our model with roles per document type (answers a question raised in one of the posts I believe) and define persons, organizations and places per role. The proposed model says that we define our documents as having persons, organizations and places that are victims, witnesses or crime scenes. I am asking a question not making a judgment even though I prefer the latter. I also believe that the latter definition is more consistent with the current OJP DD, which isn't a big issue other than it would potentially improve backward compatibility as we migrate to a "new and improved" OJP DD. gary -----Original Message----- From: John M. Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net] Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:59 PM To: Court Filing List Cc: Mark Kindl; John Wandelt Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object Dear colleagues: I have been in further discussions with Mark Kindl and John Wandelt at GTRI about the person object and possible ways to accommodate Court Filing's need for an element that accommodates persons, organizations and things. They have suggested that an actor object could be created which allowed the use of either the person, organization, or property object. They have also suggested that this object might be more easily understood and accepted if it were called "party" rather than "actor." I attach a PowerPoint diagram of the possible "actor" element that we have been discussing. I would appreciate getting your comments on it. Can anyone think of another instance -- other than party -- in which we need to be able to accept persons and organizations or persons, organizations and things? It seems to me that witnesses are invariably individuals, even when they are testifying as agents or officers of an organization. "Party" would seem to work for contracts as well as for court cases. In sum, what do you think of the idea of "party" as the name of the object instead of "actor?" I look forward to your ideas and suggestions. -- John M. Greacen Greacen Associates, LLC. 18 Fairly Road Santa Fe, NM 87507 505-471-0203 ***************************************************************************** The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. When addressed to our clients any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing KPMG client engagement letter. *****************************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC