RE: [legalxml-econtracts] hierarchical clause model?

["Chambers, Rolly" <rlchambers@smithcurrie.com>]

I'm strongly in favor of simplicity, but to me the cost of choosing
between "Clause" or "Section" from a user perspective would not be
particularly burdensome. However, the initial approach you are
suggesting is fine with me.
 
I favor non-recursive subparagraphs (e.g. Subparagraph1 contains
Subparagraph2) instead of a Subparagraph in a Subparagraph.
 
As for recitals, I would simply call them "Recital" instead of "Section"
or "Article." "Recital" is more semantically descriptive and conveys
that the text block content contains background information rather than
a term of the contract.
 
Rolly Chambers   

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Jason Harrop 
	Sent: Mon 4/7/2003 8:06 PM 
	To: 'Legalxml-Econtracts' 
	Cc: 
	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

winmail.dat