RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Clause Structure applied to Benchmark Contract

["Eddie O'Brien" <eddie@ringtailsolutions.com>]

Dan,

If you delete line 2 from the XML it will render a valid XML structure.

The xml code is referencing an internal econtracts.dtd at
/home/jharrop/eContracts.dtd 

Eddie


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Greenwood [mailto:dang@mit.edu] 
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 1:05 PM
To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [legalxml-econtracts] Clause Structure applied to Benchmark
Contract


Hi Jason,

I could not get this to display.  Here is the error message:

The XML page cannot be displayed [PARA]Cannot view XML input using style
sheet. Please correct the error and then click the Refresh button, or try
again later. [PARA][PARA]Access is denied. Error processing resource
'/home/jharrop/eContracts.dtd'. Line 2, Position 57 [PARA]<!DOCTYPE Clauses
SYSTEM "/home/jharrop/eContracts.dtd">

This is ironic, no?  What can I do to make it display?

Thanks,
 - Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Harrop [mailto:jharrop@speedlegal.com]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 12:07 PM
To: legalxml-econtracts@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [legalxml-econtracts] Clause Structure applied to Benchmark
Contract

Hi

I suggested in the post below that to understand some of the practical
implications of our decision on the CSS question, we really need to see how
the XML would have to look in order for CSS to present it properly if
applied directly.

For the purposes of comparison, I've marked up the same clause using markup
that I believe properly represents the content, but does not go out of its
way to accommodate CSS.

For completeness, I've marked up references to parties, use and making of
definitions, and cross references.  Mark up along these lines is useful in
the law firm contract creation scenario. You'll see there are lots of these,
but for present purposes they can be disregarded.

cheers,

Jason

Jason Harrop wrote:

> Hi Dan
>
> Yes, its a good idea to discuss this issue at this week's teleconf.
>
> But the 'first take' below invites us all to answer 'yes', without 
> acknowledging the price we would pay for that response.
>
> Here is one way to put it which does require us to acknowledge there 
> is a price to pay:
>
> "ALWAYS or NOT NECESSARILY: In our schema design, where choosing 
> between representations which are convenient for CSS on the one
hand,
> and representations which are attractive owing to other
considerations
> (eg ease of use, economy of expression, validation), CSS concerns
will
> ALWAYS or will NOT NECESSARILY trump all other considerations."
>
> Here is an alternative, which articulates what we are asking (fairly 
> or unfairly) of CSS:
>
> "Yes or No: Irrespective of any other consideration (eg ease of use, 
> economy of expression, validation), our schema must be such that
when
> an appropriate CSS is directly applied to a XML document (valid 
> according to the schema), the output will be of a quality that could 
> be printed and signed."
>
> I think there are still a few more issues to tease out on the
mailing
> list in order to ensure a productive fully informed teleconf.
>
> To this end, I invite John McClure (following Dan's "Benchmark 
> Contracts" email) to mark up section 6.4 (just (a) to (d) would be
> sufficient) of the lease document at 
> http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com
> /agreements/goldman/hanover.lease.1997.08.22.html
> using his XML, and to provide CSS which when applied to the XML 
> presents it as closely as CSS is capable of to that web page.  Note 
> that each of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) have headings which
appear
> inline.
>
> I will also mark up those clauses using the labels which were agreed 
> in the last teleconf, and the content model for those labels i have 
> been advocating.
>
> cheers,
>
> Jason
>
> Daniel Greenwood wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I think, based on the attention paid to the presentation issue on
our
>> list, that we as a TC should formally address the question as part
of
>> our requirements phase.  I suggest that we consider at least
starting
>> this discussion as an agenda item during our next teleconference on 
>> Wed.  I further suggest that we'll be more productive by carefully 
>> articulating the question to be addressed - i.e. the requirement 
>> statement itself.  To that end, I have talked with John McClure
today
>> and derived the following draft statement that I think will help us
to
>> clarify the issue before us.  Here is my first take at the
question,
>> please feel free to hack away at it.
>>
>> "Yes or No: The eContracts spec shall define an exchange standard
(XML
>> Schema or DTD) that includes the information needed to create 
>> conclusive presentation of the contract as agreed by the parties, 
>> without the need for an intervening transformation via XSL-T or 
>> similar process."
>>
>> I think we should first agree on the question presented and then we 
>> should determine as a group whether the answer is yes or no.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dan Greenwood
>>
>> ==============================================
>> |  Daniel J. Greenwood, Esq.
>> |  Director, E-Commerce Architecture Program
>> |  MIT School of Architecture and Planning
>> |  77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 7-231
>> |  Cambridge, MA 02139
>> |     http://ecitizen.mit.edu
>> |     or http://www.civics.com
>> |     dang@mit.edu
>>