OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

legalxml-econtracts message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [legalxml-econtracts] hierarchical clause model?


Hi Rolly

Yes, i wonder as well whether we should accommodate the alternative
structures.

The cost is increased complexity - either users need to choose between
different elements available at a given level (which means confusion or
training), or the XML editor needs to be able to be configured for US or
UK/AU operation.  Also, stylesheets become more complex, since they need
to accommodate the new elements.

For that reason, perhaps we could run with a single hierarchy of named
blocks, which we could acknowledge uses American terminology.  If it
turns out other practictioners don't like it, then at some later stage
we could consider how to accommodate other terminology.

Regarding the lower levels, are you saying recursive subparagraphs, that
is, a subparagraph in a subparagraph, or, would you say a subparagraph
contains a subsubparagraph (or maybe a 'sub2paragraph').

On a separate point, the blocks of text which occur inside the
recitals/background - do you call these action->section as well?

cheers,

Jason

Rolly Chambers wrote:
> Jason -
> 
> I continue to favor the "Hierarchically Named Blocks" approach, but within
> that approach I can live with any reasonable naming conventions. Based on
> your research, it might be prudent to consider an approach that accommodates
> the differences between US and UK/AU terminology for contract "structures,"
> perhaps something like:  Article / Clause or Section / Paragraph.
> 
> As far as lower levels below "Paragraph" are concerned, I'd favor
> "Subparagraphs." This is just a preference, however.
> 
> Rolly Chambers
> 
> 
>>Summary of Discussion points
>>----------------------------
>>
>>1. There appears to be support in U.S.A. for "Hierarchically Named
>>Blocks" which start Article, Section, Paragraph.  (I believe this
>>hierarchy was suggested by Rolly in July or August 2000.  Rolly's
>>hierarchy continued with Subparagraphs and Clauses)
>>
>>2. Elsewhere than the U.S.A (I looked at UK and Australia) there is
>>little support for 'article'. In Australia, we tend to use 'clause' to
>>refer to the blocks irrespective of their level in the hierarchy, but
>>will also occasionally use a top level of 'Part'.
>>
>>3. So assuming Article/Section/Paragraph is acceptable to US lawyers,
>>the question is whether other jurisdictions could live with it as well?
>>
>>4. If we did run with Article/Section/Paragraph, what would we call the
>>lower levels, and how many lower levels would be necessary?
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]