RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Data Consortium Contract Schema Requirements

[Sergio Maldonado <sergio@smaldonado.com>]

I find it very interesting, although it certainly has a higher reliance on
structure and real-estate specifics than I would have expected.

An important issue that comes to my mind at this point is the convenience of
contract type-specific "objects" such as that "landlord" type, if I may call
it like that. It seems clear to me that, despite helping simplify things for
the given type of contract (eg real estate), it would require the schema to
remain continuously open to further element or type definitions (originating
from different contract types).

But of course, defining a single vocabulary that avoids such "objects" would
require the abstraction of all possible relationships between any number of
parties to a contract instead (such as those linking the Renter, Payer and
Payee, which could, for instance, be eventually used to describe the
relationships between the parties to a Bill of Exchange in International
Trade contracts). Quite a challenge.

A "cascading" model though, with specific industries being able to define
their own contract type-specific sub-vocabularies inheriting from a solid
eContracts spec, could be the efficient way forward.



 -----Original Message-----
From: John McClure [mailto:jmcclure@hypergrove.com]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:52 PM
To: 'Legalxml-Econtracts'
Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Data Consortium Contract Schema Requirements


Attached is the first draft of Data Consortium requirements for an
electronic contract schema -- right now, it contains information about the
structure of a contract. I am updating this document for the Goods and the
Terms in a contract, so expect a more complete version this week. At that
time, the document will be officially submitted for your consideration; this
is merely a mid-point version.

Any comments about this material would be appreciated.
Thanks,
John