RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up Documents

["O'Brien, Robert" <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>]

"These should be extracted from free text if possible by allowing text
to
flow around the tags for these data points."

Yes, I think you've got it John. Roger, do you see it thusly?

-----Original Message-----
From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
Sent: January 9, 2007 7:04 PM
To: O'Brien, Robert
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up Documents

I distill from this exchange the following:

Data points for extraction must be established and in many cases made
mandatory.

These should be extracted from free text if possible by allowing text to
flow around the tags for these data points.

The remaining free text should be stored as needed for future reference.

Sounds like a CMS and DMS to me.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
> Documents
> From: "O'Brien, Robert" <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>
> Date: Tue, January 09, 2007 3:11 pm
> To: <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> 
> I don't disagree at all with John M: we must walk a fine line / create
a
> balance between the Courts' sometimes almost insatiable need for data
> for its CMS vs. the breaking point of e-filers for the amount of data
> entry that can reasonably be expected of them with their filings ---
> lest they simply revert to what they perceive as less onerous paper
> filings. Also agree with John re: maintaining the lawyer's look and
feel
> of his document. It's one reason many e-filing installations opt for
PDF
> as the submitted document format, to lock down counsel's presentation.
> 
> What I believe Roger and I are suggesting is that there is still ample
> opportunity to PAINLESSLY extract data from e-filers via marked-up
> documents. Let me give the breakdown of a typical example of a docket
> entry for an Affidavit document:
> 
> Affidavit of: John Smith
> Sworn on: January 3, 2007
> Before: R.H. Talbot, Commissioner of Oaths
> Filed on behalf of: the Defendant ABC Co. 
> In Opposition to: Motion for Particulars of counterclaim
> Attached: Exhibits A-F 
> Submitted pursuant to: special order of Judge Jones allowing extension
> of time to respond until January 9, 2009
> 
> Currently, we are not getting all of that information from the legal
> envelope itself. And that may be fine, because if the e-filer had to
> answer additional onscreen data fields --- in addition to having
already
> entered it when he or she typed up the document itself --- then our
> e-filer might just walk away and return to the paper filing world
where
> no one seems to bother him so.
> 
> But this standard information the Courts crave is already all there
> within the Affidavit document itself, just waiting to be harvested. It
> is important to stress this point: it is ALREADY there, albeit in free
> form and perhaps scattered about the doc. 
> 
> By marking up the document to contain a few tags that would convey
this
> info to us for parsing, the Court and Clerk's Office would see a
> completely automated docket entry creation - the Holy Grail from their
> perspective. 
> 
> Yet the attorney is still free to insert all sorts of free-form of
> argument as John rightly contends. The few strategic tags that the
> Courts would require would not interfere with counsel's creativeness
nor
> with the overall presentation of his document.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
> Sent: January 8, 2007 9:25 PM
> To: O'Brien, Robert
> Cc: john@greacen.net; Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV;
> legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
Documents
> 
> I think the needs of lawyers need to acknowledged. The filings for
them
> are ways to influence a judge's or jury's decision. If they feel put
> into a strait-jacket for extraneous reasons, they may feel that
> electronic filing is an obstacle, rebel and complain to the judges. A
> way to prevent such an outcome, which I think would be disasterous for
> electronic court filing, is to assure that free-form of argument is
> available somewhere within a document. It may not even be persistent
> data from the perspective of the court administration, but it is a
> matter of record and will require preservation nontheless. It could be
> stored as a single blob or as some kind of character data. But it will
> need to be included, to avoid real trouble, IMHO.
> 
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up
> > Documents
> > From: "O'Brien, Robert" <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>
> > Date: Mon, January 08, 2007 7:09 pm
> > To: <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>,
> > <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > Cc: <john@greacen.net>
> > 
> > As a fellow representative of the Court User domain, I
wholeheartedly
> > endorse Roger's sentiments. Many Court staff and managers don't even
> > want to hear about e-filing unless it will save them work (e.g. the
> area
> > of case management system data entry). 
> > 
> > We must try to leverage more from e-filing in this regard.
> > 
> > Robert O'B
> > Courts Administration Service 
> > Ottawa Canada
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV] 
> > Sent: December 24, 2006 8:34 PM
> > To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Cc: john@greacen.net
> > Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] Charter: Mention Marked-Up Documents
> > 
> > Hello, John, and members of the List,
> > 
> > In perusing the draft revised Charter, I have realized we haven't
> > stressed that it is a goal of the TC to develop XML documents that
> would
> > be marked up in such a way as to automate data extraction and
> eliminate
> > duplicative data entry for court filings. Accordingly, I propose
that
> > the draft Charter revision be amended to include language such as:
> > 
> > "the TC intends to develop techniques and principles for creating
XML
> > legal documents for the purpose of data capture and re-use without
> > manual re-entry, across a broad spectrum of uses, including court
> > filings."
> > 
> > I hope others will endorse this added purpose and, if anyone has
> better
> > language, please offer it. 
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > Roger
> > 
> > Roger Winters
> > King County