[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] smart docs (was (Microsoft XML Team's WebLog) : Mixing structured and unstructured content in MS Word)
Thanks for the clarification. Best regards. > -------- 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 12:07 pm > To: "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>, "Mark Ladd" > <mark.ladd@addison-one.com>, <jharris@ncsc.dni.us> > > 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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]