RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Caption Numbers

["John McClure" <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>]

>With a seven level hierarchy where anything is allowed anywhere else,
>well, seven factorial equals 720.  Now, i know you won't catch each
>possibility with a distinct template.
>
>But the problem is that users will put a Paragraph directly in an
>Article _by mistake_, and using your approach, your styles would need to
>cater for that.  And I don't want to impose this burden on
>administrators or support staff who are not XPath experts.
>
Hi Jason,
I wasn't proposing 7 levels where "anything is allowed anywhere else".... seems
your calculation of "720 templates" is based on a misunderstanding of my
proposal. Let me try calculating a more realistic number of templates -- because
it IS a good question -- that is based on the DC proposal of Section, Clause,
and Para, within which are SubSection, SubClause, and SubPara, respectively. As
mentioned, the DC proposal allows the Clause and Para within a Contract, and
allows a Para within a Section.

Contract Section
Contract Section Clause
Contract Section Clause SubClause
Contract Section Clause SubClause Para
Contract Section Clause SubClause Para SubPara
Contract Section Clause Para SubPara
Contract Section Para
Contract Section Para SubPara
Contract Section SubSection
Contract Section SubSection Clause
Contract Section SubSection Clause SubClause
Contract Section SubSection Clause Para
Contract Section SubSection Clause SubClause Para
Contract Section SubSection Clause Para SubPara
Contract Section SubSection Clause SubClause Para SubPara
Contract Section SubSection Para
Contract Section SubSection Para SubPara
Contract Clause
Contract Clause SubClause
Contract Clause Para
Contract Clause Para SubPara
Contract Clause SubClause Para
Contract Clause SubClause Para SubPara
Contract Para
Contract Para SubPara

So there are only 25 templates, not 720! Of course, an organization
standardizing on a particular document structure could trim this number down
pretty fast  (eg note that 36% of these are for structures that include a rarely
used "SubSection") but the structure IS there for those who have the need. Now,
please know that I don't subscribe to Sub1Para, Sub2Para, and so on... those are
a recipe for user confusion to me... I suggest more common, less tortured,
names.

On the subject of names for these things. An "Article", within which you
designate "Section" blocks, applies to laws (and regulations?) and to other very
formal documents like constitutions -- I have rarely heard these terms applied
to a contract, but likely only because I am not a practicing attorney. The
common-man's definition of a Section would be something closer to a high-level
division of the contract, than a numbered sub-block of text. And, judging by the
useful statistics you gathered, I must echo your own conclusion that "Clause"
seems a more acceptable cross-Anglo term than "Article".....

So I am requesting that, for the domain of eContracts, we use the very common
term -- Clause -- rather than Article. We've been using the term for so many
years now that it seems a little strange to suddenly trash it -- I simply don't
understand the justification given in the FAQ..... part of our job I thought was
to establish an operating definition for the term, not to surrender and say that
it's too ambiguous for any good use. Is this something we could reconsider?

Regards, and a sincere thanks for your good work pulling together all the
requirements,
John