RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart docs (was (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word)

["Winters, Roger" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>]

I would say that there is no intention whatsoever to impair this freedom
and duty of lawyers to use language freely to argue cases. The only
point we are making is that the documents in which that work is done, if
they are filed in courts, uniformly involve some placement of certain
items of information (data elements) in conventional or required places.
This is what gives us the ability to leverage that into some amount of
automatic processing of the document and key data elements it contains. 

I have feared the seeming distinction being made between a "freely"
developed attorney-written document and a "constraining, imposed form"
and the potential misconception that we work at cross-purposes here. I
would join you in opposing any effort to eliminate the attorney's role
as an advocate who freely uses words on paper to make the case.

Note the added concept in the first paragraph, above: "conventional
places" for certain data elements. Observing those conventions (caption
set up in a certain way since time immemorial, signature block at the
end, usually following a certain pattern) is very similar to obeying
requirements of a form to place the data elements in those very
positions. 

I'd like to stress again my thinking was strongly influenced by
observing the Washington Pattern Forms Committee creating both required
and recommended formats for various purposes (mostly in domestic
relations at the time) -- the committee is almost completely made up of
attorneys. I'd say they seemed to me zealous both in identifying data
items needed, as required by relevant statutes, for the given purposes
of the form and in ensuring there were "Other" sections in each area to
allow the attorney to expound, add information, explain, persuade, or do
whatever the attorney felt it important to do, without limitation or
restriction as to how many words or pages would be used for that
purpose. The pattern forms were designed not to force unnecessary data
entry on the attorney, but to help ensure that the attorney (or
self-represented litigant) would indeed include information explicitly
or implicitly called for by the relevant statutes. Some such forms are
"mandatory," but most, I believe, were not.

I hope this helps show that there shouldn't be a big religious argument
here. I believe the answer is a "BOTH/AND" type answer - we have both a
calling out of certain specifics (ideally, for automatic data tagging)
and acceptance of free-form argumentation by the attorney in documents
filed for the purpose of persuading the Court. How could we ever abandon
the latter? 

Roger

Roger Winters
Program and Project Manager
and
Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator
King County
Department of Judicial Administration
516 Third Ave. E-609 MS:KCC-JA-0609
Seattle, WA 98104
V: (206) 296-7838
F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov
 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:38 AM
To: Winters, Roger
Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; O'Brien,Robert;
Hickman,Brian; Mark Ladd; jharris@ncsc.dni.us
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart docs (was (Microsoft XML
Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word)

If an agenda of this group is to eliminate the ability of lawyers to
communicate their arguments in pleadings with the freedom they have
enjoyed traditionally for centuries for the purpose of facilitating
data entry by clerks in computers, then I do not believe I should
participate. I can think of no other action that could more effectively
galvanize opposition to efiling by lawyers.

Please advise. Thank you.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart docs (was (Microsoft XML
> Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS
Word)
> From: "Winters, Roger" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>
> Date: Thu, January 18, 2007 11:21 am
> To: "Mark Ladd" <mark.ladd@addison-one.com>, <jharris@ncsc.dni.us>,
> "John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com>
> Cc: <legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>, "O'Brien,Robert"
> <Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca>, "Hickman,Brian"
> <Brian.Hickman@wolterskluwer.com>
> 
>                   <Ladd>The land records and mortgage lending
industries have been leveraging XML based documents for just this type
of automated processing for a number of years now.  They had the
cultural advantage of already being very form oriented.</Ladd>
Agreed. However, in the court environment where Ive been involved since
1988 (19 years more or less), weve always had a mix of free-form prose
writing and form-filling. We just have taken the form-filling part for
granted and forgot it makes the whole document, in a sense, a form!    I
guess Id define form as the placement of information (from brief
items to long arguments) in expected/customary or required locations so
the information is more easily discovered and used by its intended
audience.    Some other beautiful aspects of the XML smart document:
data can be kept in the metadata that accompanies a case, even when
the data doesnt figure in the prose part of the document being
e-filed.    The chal
 lenge is to find and maintain a balance between data
collection/repurposing needs and the adversarial process itself. None of
this works unless we enter the field to develop it, saying, We are here
to raise all boats!   Yours,    Roger    Roger Winters Program and
Project Manager and Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator King
County Department of Judicial Administration 516 Third Ave. E-609
MS:KCC-JA-0609 Seattle, WA 98104 V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906
roger.winters@metrokc.gov        From: Mark Ladd
[mailto:mark.ladd@addison-one.com] 
>  Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:23 AM
>  To: jharris@ncsc.dni.us; Winters, Roger; 'John Messing'
>  Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; 'O'Brien,Robert';
'Hickman,Brian'
>  Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart docs (was (Microsoft XML
Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word)
It seems to me that this is a typical technological evolutionary
process.  Think of it like this&   Before there were PCs and word
processors, you could put any piece of 8.5x11 paper into any typewriter
and produce a document that anyone could read.  The recipient didnt
even need a typewriter to read it.   With the advent of PCs, you needed
something called software to go along with your fancy typewriter to
produce a document.  But now you had two options for viewing&hardcopy
and electronic.  Hardcopy still allowed for anyone to read the document.
But the electronic format required the reader to have compatible
software.  The convenience outweighed the expense so we all bought into
it.   Now we are asking the software to do some of the reading (and
typing) for us.  So we develop standards like eCF.   In order to
leverage this, 
 lawyers, judges, courts, etc will need to use software that has the
standards built in (i.e. some sort of a form).  These forms will
infringe on what we think of as completely free-form documents today,
but the convenience will once again outweigh the expense and perceived
inconvenience.     When we moved from pulp-based paper to electronic
paper, the rules got a little tighter, but there were advantages. Now
as we move from electronic documents to automated electronic documents
the rules tighten-up again, but the new system provides vast
advantages for all parties.     Its just the next step in the process.
It makes some slight changes in the business process, but provides huge
dividends for doing so.   The land records and mortgage lending
industries have been leveraging XML based documents for just this type
of automated processing for a number of years now.  They had the
cultural advantage of already being very form oriented.   $0.02
Mark Ladd PRIA Techn
 ology Coordinator   Addison/One, LLC mark.ladd@addison-one.com
262-498-0850        From: Jim Harris [mailto:jharris@ncsc.dni.us] 
>  Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 8:16 AM
>  To: 'Winters, Roger'; 'John Messing'
>  Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; 'O'Brien,Robert';
'Hickman,Brian'
>  Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart docs (was (Microsoft XML
Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word)
Roger:   You have a unique ability to break this issue down and relate
it to the real-world problems we are trying to address.  Your
explanation highlights the primary objectives of the standards we are
asking the justice and legal communities to adopt.  I think the key part
of this (which started this whole smart documents dialog) is the
challenge associated with creating forms in a way that is as unobtrusive
and intuitive as possible.   I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly) from
one of Johns comments that attorneys would like to be able to draft
documents as they do now without any concern to form or tagging of data.
This suggests that electronic systems must be able to parse and
interpret the content in order to identify relevant metadata that we all
agree is essential to realize the benefits of electronic filing.  That
level of
  intelligence is just not feasible (at least with todays technology)
without the data being tagged in some way.  Hence the need for some type
of form so that data can be tagged as (or after) its collected.
Arent forms routinely a part of filing, even in the paper world?  Why
should it be any different in the electronic world?  Ultimately, the
systems and vendors who support attorneys and law firms need to put in
place mechanisms to support the standards in a way that leverages use of
their systems to feed the electronic filing process.  That will most
certainly involve some sort of form or process to identify and tag
information.  Further, electronic court policy should be part of that
process so that those systems know what data must be tagged for that
particular type of filing/document in the court to which they are
filing.   Jim   -----Original Message-----
>  From: Winters, Roger [mailto:Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV] 
>  Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 12:58 PM
>  To: John Messing
>  Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; O'Brien,Robert;
Hickman,Brian
>  Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart docs (was (Microsoft XML
Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word)
Dear John:   Thank you for this reply and, yes, it is very helpful.    I
understand the importance within a court environment of having common
references in documents so court proceedings can avoid delays and
confusion while everyone compares different printouts of the same
information. I agree with you that PDF seems to have conquered that
problem better than others (so far) and it is certainly clear that PDF
has credibility with many of our stakeholders.   In my presentations
about the idea of "smart documents" and "automating docketing," I have
shared the idea that electronic documents must be understood as existing
in several "layers" (for lack of a better term):    The "Top" one is the
"human-readable," and this is where it is important that the page
breaks, etc., should all be the same. Any electronic document in a court
file, t
 o be useful, must offer this human readable surface that looks like
"words on paper." It is the resemblance to paper that is to be
preserved, not necessarily all of the concepts and practices we have
built up over years of working with hard copy. The consumers of
documents at this level would not necessarily even know that any XML
markup has been done.    The "Next" level is the "XML markup" or
"software-readable" level. This could also be human-readable (although
not formatted for conventional reading) because the data and information
in the document remain an exact match for the "human readable" version
(above). The XML tags (labels) used must be the same if there is to be
standardization, interoperability, and the potential to leverage XML
powers for other uses besides docketing filings for court cases. I see
the work that has produced NIEM and GJXDM and such as directed to this
"layer." Here, a "data element tag" must fit a standard (or be a
standard extension). Often, t
 he local term used may vary from the term used in the XML tag: this is
fine so long as the "thing described" is the same in each place.     The
ideal regarding XML markup would be for the typical author of a document
to be filed in court not to be aware of XML markup. Here is where I
would think of any filed document having to be, necessarily, set up as a
form in some, but not all, ways. Where a court needs a data element to
be routinely marked up, it would include a spot in the "pattern form"
where that data element needs to be placed (example: the case number
always appears at a certain place in the first page caption). Unseen to
the user would be the process of associating the appropriate XML data
element tag with the location in the form where the respective data
elements get their markup. The "software-readable" layer of the document
interacts with applications searching for specified data element tags so
the tagged information can be re-used in targets where it is need
 ed (such as a CMS, DMS, calendar, etc.).    Other "layers" of the
electronic document can be identified and discussed, as well: there's a
machine-readable layer, I presume, and even the "envelope" might be seen
as a "layer" where the metadata and other information necessary for the
Electronic Court Filing action can be located and activated.    This
"layering" seemed to me to solve a number of problems. A document can be
seen as both something for human beings to read, from which they would
be persuaded through argumentation, legal citation, etc., of what is
fact, what is law, etc., via the prose created by the
(litigant/attorney) author. At the same time, the document could be
parsed by a software application that searches out the appropriate,
needed data element tags that point to data that will be used in
automated docketing, data re-use, etc. Just as one might check out a
court file and read it years later, software might still be able to
locate needed data elements for 
 years to come by applying the standard in effect at the time of filing.
If this line of reasoning is off base or, worse, grounded in
impossibilities, it is important to learn that now. Otherwise, I would
like to see more people thinking about what it would take to support
automated docketing, ultimately yielding substantial savings (reduced
human data entry, reduced errors, etc.) and potential for improved
performance (e.g., quicker access to needed information for the court
and others).   I am finding this dialogue to be helpful and I hope my
comments are contributing to a constructive resolution which should show
us, I believe, that we do not have to force a choice among different
approaches.    I'll look forward to your and others' reactions to this
essay o' mine.   Regards,   Roger   Roger Winters Program and Project
Manager King County Department of Judicial Administration 516 Third Ave.
E-609 MS:KCC-JA-0609 Seattle, WA 98104 V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206)
296-0906 roger
 .winters@metrokc.gov     -----Original Message----- From: John Messing
[mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]  Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:33
AM To: Winters, Roger Cc: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org;
O'Brien,Robert; Hickman,Brian Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart
docs (was (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and
unstructured content in MS Word)   Roger:   I think many of us are
groping our way through the issues, with different levels of technical
understanding and familiarity with jargon. Frustration with my own lack
of understanding is quite familar to me, I can assure you.   My take on
where we are is this:   ECF has developed tools to send documents
between places in order to file them. These documents have been PDF
documents for the most part that are "dumb" compared to the XML that
carries them.   The mortgage industry and the land recorders have been
working on the same problem and have sophisticated tools that are
different from ECF
  to accomplish many of the same purposes, also using PDF's and XML
documents.   NIEM is a governmental-sponsored effort for the same
transporting purpose but at a greater level of sophistication because
the tagged terms can be associated with other tagged terms, combining
the power of them, using a technology called RDF, and with other
powerful features.   I believe it is useful to settle on one basic set
of building blocks, and perhaps NIEM should be it for transport
purposes. ECF seems to take that approach. So does Enotary, at least in
principle.   That still leaves the problem you have wisely directed
attention to, which is having the documents act in a smart fashion so
that the content of the PDF's doesn't have to be extracted and the data
entered by hand when they arrive at the destination.   The electronic
document vendors have not been idle and have retooled their products to
make them "smart"; this is done by making the products out of XML,
instead of the proprietar
 y formats previously used and then displaying them using the legacy
proprietary programs. This has required turning the programs inside out,
in a manner of speaking. One consequence is that they can natively be
incorporated by XML schemas, or can communicate with the schemas, to
accomplish goals without having the awkwardness ECF has become
accustomed to, for example, of embedding the PDF's in XML. Brian just
reported on how Microsoft has retooled office products, including
MS-Word to accomplish this purpose. Adobe has been doing the same thing.
Adobe has two advantages over MS as I see it, apart from document
security features, which are not germane to this discussion.   1. The
current XML offerings can be displayed by the Adobe Reader and Acrobat
programs in both the old and new formats, making the Reader and Acrobat
programs backwards compatible. The new Office products may not be fully
backwards compatible according to what I have read.   2. Adobe PDF
documents preser
 ve pagination regardless of screen resolution. MS-Word has not up until
now. That means multiple copies of an MS document may show different
pagination on different computers even though the same file is displayed
on all of them. This shortcoming makes discussion of a document's
content, as in a court hearing with multiple attorneys, a judge and a
clerk, very difficult, because passages will not necessarily appear on
the same page as displayed on the computer even though the identical
file is used. PDF does not suffer from this limitation.   With regard to
your question about eNotary, I think the short answer is "none of the
above." The membership of enotary is largely from the mortgage and land
recording groups who are trying to solve a bottleneck in their workflow
represented by enotarization. They are confronted by many of the same
issues but until now have been solving them in different ways from ECF.
They seem to have much more knowledge about the PDF document aspects, 
 in large part through John Jones, who is a representative from the land
recorder industry to enotary. He works closely with top Adobe engineers.
I think each group, ecf and enotary, can learn much from each other
about the practical solutions to common problems that cut across legal
domains, provided there is a willingness to do so, which may require
letting go of legacy notions of turf.   I hope this is helpful.   >
-------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling]
FW: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : > Mixing structured and unstructured
content in MS Word > From: "Winters, Roger" <Roger.Winters@METROKC.GOV>
> Date: Fri, January 12, 2007 5:40 pm > To: "John Messing"
<jmessing@law-on-line.com>, "Hickman,Brian" >
<Brian.Hickman@wolterskluwer.com> > Cc:
<legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>, "O'Brien,Robert" >
<Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca> >  > TO: All >  > It will be interesting
to explore these possibilities. I have trouble > deciphering acrony
 ms I've never heard of and I keep hoping that sometime > they will come
to light and the basic ideas will be expressed so I can > understand
them. What are the pros and cons of one approach vs. another? > What are
the business consequences or assumptions behind using one or > another?
For example, is the idea about using this in E-Notarization > based on
assumptions about notaries, attorneys, people in general, or is > it
coming entirely from scientific technical reasons that can't be >
controversial? Are there religious issues behind the approaches? (e.g.,
> in Notarization is there a religious conservatism that calls for
things > to resemble "traditional" approaches, or is that not an issue?)
Will > this flavor of PDF work until Adobe clamps down in some future
time and > takes free PDF reading away? A zillion questions come to mind
for those > of us who are not adept at acronym-eze or tech-speak.  >  >
I don't ask these questions seeking specific answers or defenses of > 
 positions - I am too ignorant of all of this to have a position yet. I
> ask them only to illustrate that we continue to have among us all a >
language barrier. It does not seem to be a problem for those who are so
> technically advanced that acronyms spill from their tongues as they >
enthrall other technically advanced folks with brilliant new >
possibilities. It is a problem when those of us who would love to >
understand the possibilities find ourselves hopelessly lost because they
> seem only to be speaking in tongues in which we have no experience. It
> is not at all insulting to "dumb it down" for others. >  > That raises
another consideration - if ECFTC does not make a certain > attainment of
technical expertise a requirement for participation, is it > therefore a
requirement that the rest engage in "dumbing it down" for > the rest?
Who must take pains to bridge the communication gap? And it is > a gap
and there is pain involved in trying to guess, beg for answers, >
  preach against acronyms, etc. How can we work together if we do not
find > the bridges and translations needed to understand one another?
Could XML > come to our rescue by some "schema" (still not sure I can
explain that > idea to others) that processes the terms somehow so that
a "dummies" > version is generated as well? >  > Did I miss the
prerequisite classes that everyone else took and aced? >  > Happy MLK
Weekend! >  > Roger >  > Roger Winters > Program and Project Manager >
and > Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Coordinator > King County >
Department of Judicial Administration > 516 Third Ave. E-609
MS:KCC-JA-0609 > Seattle, WA 98104 > V: (206) 296-7838 > F: (206)
296-0906 > roger.winters@metrokc.gov >   >  > -----Original Message-----
> From: John Messing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]  > Sent: Friday,
January 12, 2007 4:24 PM > To: Hickman,Brian > Cc:
legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org; O'Brien,Robert > Subject: RE:
[legalxml-courtfiling] FW: (Microsoft XM
 L Team's WebLog) : > Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS
Word >  > An alternative is Adobe's XFA format which enables XML
schema's to > generate PDF layout documents. It is ideal for form-based
documents. > This likely will be the document format structure that
eNotary will use > for the layout of its form-based notary certificates,
jurats and > acknowledgements. >  > > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] FW: (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) :
> > Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word > > From:
"Hickman, Brian" <Brian.Hickman@wolterskluwer.com> > > Date: Fri,
January 12, 2007 4:53 pm > > To:
<legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org>, "O'Brien,Robert" > >
<Robert.OBrien@cas-satj.gc.ca> > >  > > After reading Roger Winters and
John Messing's posts on embedding > > structured and unstructured
content in a pleading I thought I would > ask > > Microsoft's XML team
to recommend a method to add structured / machine > > 
 readable content to an MS Word document that also contains >
unstructured > > / narrative content.   > >  > > I am forwarding
Microsoft's response for your review. > >  > > Brian Hickman  > >
Attorney > > Government Relations > > CT > >  > >  > > 520 Pike Street,
Suite 2610 > > Seattle, WA 98101  > > 206 622 4511 (tel) > > 206 437
1766 (mobile) > > brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com > >   > >  > >  > >
-----Original Message----- > > From: Brian Jones (OFFICE)
[mailto:brijones@exchange.microsoft.com]  > > Sent: Friday, January 12,
2007 1:30 PM > > To: Adam Wiener; Michael Champion; Hickman, Brian;
Steven Goulet; Doug > > Mahugh; Gray Knowlton > > Subject: RE:
(Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and > > unstructured
content in MS Word > >  > > Hi Brian, > > The model in both Word 2003
and 2007 is to allow you to add your > custom > > XML markup to a Word
document so that it lives alongside the > formatting > > and layout
information. > > The validation occurs on you
 r schema on its own, even though there is > > also WordprocessingML
whenever you save the file. > >  > > It's recommended that you leverage
the Word structures as much as > > possible, and only add your own XML
markup for persisting semantics > that > > can't be captured with the
Word model. > > I would also suggest learning more about the new content
controls > > feature in Word 2007. This allows you to add more structure
on top of > > your Word documents. There is a series of blog posts on
the Word blog > > that cover this, and I just recently blogged about the
post that > covers > > mapping custom XML to content controls: > > >
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/01/10/the-power-of-data-v
> > iew-separation-in-your-documents.aspx > >  > >  > > -Brian > >  > >
-----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Wiener > > Sent: Friday,
January 12, 2007 12:13 PM > > To: Adam Wiener; Michael Champion;
brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com; > > Brian Jones (OFFICE); Steven Goulet
 ; Doug Mahugh; Gray Knowlton > > Subject: RE: (Microsoft XML Team's
WebLog) : Mixing structured and > > unstructured content in MS Word > >
> > Adding Doug and Gray as well... XML Bloggers on bcc... > >  > >
Thanks, > > Adam > >  > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam
Wiener > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:32 AM > > To: Michael
Champion; brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com; Xml Team > > Bloggers; Brian
Jones (OFFICE); Steven Goulet > > Subject: RE: (Microsoft XML Team's
WebLog) : Mixing structured and > > unstructured content in MS Word > >
> > Looping in Brian Jones and Steven Goulet... > >  > > Can you please
take a look at Mr. Hickman's question below? > >  > > Thanks, > > Adam >
>  > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Champion > > Sent:
Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:29 PM > > To:
brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com; Xml Team Bloggers > > Subject: RE:
(Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and > > unstructured
content in MS Word > >  > > Thank
 s for your inquiry.  The people on this list are not Word > experts, >
> so I'll try to find someone in the Office team who can answer.  (Or, >
if > > one of you on the XML team does know the answer, feel free to
chime > in!) > >  > > I know that you can edit documents that conform to
a custom schema in > > Word 2003 and 2007. > >
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2006/01/25/517739.aspx > >
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/03/11/XMLFiles/ > >  > >  I
don't know about mixing structured (custom schema) and unstructured > >
(default Word schema) in one doc, however, if that is what you are > >
asking.   Please let me know if you don't hear back from someone in > >
Office in a timely manner and I'll try to follow up. > >  > > Mike
Champion > >  > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From:
brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com > >
[mailto:brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, January
11, 2007 5:42 PM > > > To: Xml Team Bloggers > > > Subject: (Microsoft
  XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and > > unstructured > > >
content in MS Word > > > Importance: High > > > > > > > > > I am a
member of OASIS LegalXML's Electronic Court Filing Technical > >
Committee > > > and an attorney with CT Corporation.  The  goal of the
technical > > committee is > > > to develop standards to file documents
electronically with courts. > > Today, > > > most documents produced by
the legal industry are produced in MS > Word. > > > Unfortunately,
today, a human must read the document at the > courthouse > > to > > >
extract data from the document to populate the court's case > management
> > system. > > > My question is:  Can we integrate content that
conforms to a custom > > data model > > > into MS Word such that
structured content and unstructured content > can > > reside > > > in
the same document?  If the case management system could extract > >
content > > > from an MS Word file that conformed to a customize data
model (i'm > > thinking > 
 > > along the lines of adding an MS Scheme that matched the court's > >
requirements) > > > then an automated process could extract data
directly from the MS > Word > > file. > > > > > > If you look at a legal
pleading you will see that some sections of > the > > > document are
structured and conform to a data model that conforms to > a > > set of >
> > rules expressed by the court in narrative format and some parts of >
the > > > document are almost unstructured, such a a paragraph of
narrative. > > > > > > What approach would you recommend to allow
attorneys to use the tool > > they are > > > familiar with, MS Word, and
still embed some machine readable > content > > within > > > the MS Word
document? > > > > > > Thank you > > > > > > Brian Hickman > > >
---------------------------------- > > > This message was generated from
a contact form at: > > > http://blogs.msdn.com/xmlteam/default.aspx > >
> It was submitted by Brian Hickman (brian.hickman@wolterskluwer.com) >
> > >
  > > Your contact information was not shared with the user.