[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: CaseParticipantRoleCode
|
I concur with Gary and Barb. A fundamental question I had when doing the assignment with Gary and Barb was, Why are CaseInitiatingParty, CaseDefendantParty, or CaseRespondentParty needed? Do the recipients of these elements really care
or use them? Don’t the recipients of initial submissions for first appearances just want to know who the plaintiffs and defendants are (or appellant/appellee, etc.)? Seems to me that the initiating party(s) is the one submitting the complaint/appeal, and
the respondent/defendant party(s) are the folks having to answer the complaint. Maybe my perspective is too simplistic… Jim Price From: legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:legalxml-courtfiling@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of James E Cabral 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]