RE: CaseParticipantRoleCode

Thanks to the subcommittee. After reviewing the draft, I think we can distill the entirety of it down to 3 things:

A rule in the specification that attorneys and judges MUST be represented as Persons while litigants and other participants MAY be represented as Persons, Organizations or Items.
A mapping in Genericode (or the specification) of the role elements contained in j:CaseAugmentation to allowable CaseParticipantRoleCodes.
A rule in the specification that CaseParticipantRoleCode SHOULD be provided whenever a generic participant role element (j:CaseJudge, j:CaseOfficial or j:CaseOtherEntity) is used.

See my attached spreadsheet which builds out the committee’s suggested role codes and maps them to each of the role elements currently in the specification. This looks very doable.

However, I have an important question for the subcommittee. Note that if we map “Other” participants to j:CaseOtherEntity, we do not currently have a role specific to litigants other than j:CaseDefendantParty, j:CaseInitiatingParty and j:CaseRespondentParty. Should we also map those litigants to j:CaseOtherEntity or should we create another role such as ecf:CaseOtherParty?

__
Jim Cabral
502 509-4532

From: Graham, Gary
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 11:40 AM
To: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-courtfiling] CaseParticipantRoleCode

At the May 9, 2017 ECF TC conference call, a subcommittee was asked to establish a normative default value list for CaseParticipantRoleCode and CaseOfficialCode. This subcommittee, consisting of Jim Price, Barbara Holmes, and Gary Graham have completed this task. Attached you will find a spreadsheet containing the recommended code values and a cover-page document which provides additional explanatory information.

legalxml-courtfiling message