[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: CaseParticipantRoleCode
Gary, By “also map those litigants”, I asked whether we wanted both “other” participants and non-defendant, initiating or respondent litigants to be represented with j:CaseOtherEntity. I agree that instead representing those litigants as something like ecf:CaseOtherParty is the best option if we need to clearly distinguish roles codes associated with litigants from role codes associated with “other” participants. __ From: Graham, Gary I believe all members of the subcommittee would recommend the ecf:CaseOtherParty option to be used when the litigant’s role in the case (e.g. plaintiff, crossdefendant, etc.) does not well fit any of the current
three party elements. I do not think a party would need to have both, but I am not sure what you mean by “also map those litigants”.
So if the entity is a case party (e.g. litigant), and the elements j:CaseDefendantParty, j:CaseInitiatingParty, or j:CaseRespondentParty are not appropriate per the definitions for those elements, then ecf:CaseOtherParty
would be used. This case party would not have both ecf:CaseOtherParty and j:CaseInitiatingParty (or j:CaseDefendantParty or j:CaseResondentParty) and would not also have CaseOtherEntity. Jim or Barbara, if you think otherwise, please chime in. Gary Graham From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of James E Cabral Thanks to the subcommittee. After reviewing the draft, I think we can distill the entirety of it down to 3 things:
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? __ From: Graham, Gary 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. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]