Clause model requirements - proposed amendment (was Re: (tq065) )

[Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>]

Hi Dr Leff

Thank you for your email with proposed amendment to the clause model
requirements document. I've taken the liberty of replying to the list, 
in case this dialogue is helpful to others.

I could live with your amendment if you wish to press it but ask that 
you consider whether it is really necessary, in the light of the 
comments below.

Peter and I don't want to graft on anything more than is necessary to 
articulate a set of core objectives, which can then be achieved with a 
clause model. The more specific requirements we as a TC add, the more 
interpretation and more potential for inconsistency.

We certainly do not wish to inhibit the use of XML in the way described 
in your scenario. As you say, there is nothing in the requirements that 
would interfere with it. Indeed, it is our ambition to provide a common 
platform that can be used for the widest range of needs.

Specifically, in relation to your suggested amendment, the requirements 
do not provide for inclusion of any tags whose purpose is the display of 
the document. Peter and I agree completely with your sentiment that the 
markup should not include such information (with the exception of 
emphasis markup such as bold or italics etc which isn't in the 
requirements for this basic clause model, but which may need to be added 
to the issues listed in requirement 12).

I wonder if perhaps you are concerned about the last sentence of clause 
5.5 and the first sentence of specific requirement 2. This is intended 
to ensure that the grammatical structure is captured in the hierarchical 
structural markup so it can be rendered accurately, not to capture 
display information such as indentation etc in the markup.

If, after considering these points, you still feel that your amendment 
is necessary, please say so, and subject to any other comments, we'll 
add it in.

cheers

Jason


Dr. Laurence Leff wrote:
 > Thank you for your work in preparing the requirements document for the
 > Technical Committee's Clause Model.
 >
 > Just a friendly reminder that there are situations where contracts
 > are manipulated electronically and may not be printed.  One of these
 > is the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Involving Contracts Scenario
 > 
(http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/download.php/2035/WIUScenarioTwo).
 > In this scenario, the electronic contract serves as a "lingua franca"
 > between the ebXML messages (and their Payloads) and the court that is
 > resolving a dispute regarding the contractual relations that those 
messages
 > may have created.
 >
 > There may be other situations involving agent communication and the like,
 > where the contract serves as an intermediary between programs.
 >
 > In your document, there is
 > a note that said "It is hard to envisage a situation where the
 > parties would wish to use an XML file as a contract document...will 
translate
 > to a display..."
 > But, I found nothing in the meat of your proposal that would interfere
 > with those using the standard for the applications I envisage.
 >
 > But, it would best
 > to include a statement paralleling your item Seven, to wit:
 > "The clause model
 > must permit the markup of contract terms without inclusion
 > of the XML tags whose purpose is the display of the document. "
 > I brought the issue up in two different meetings and the Technical 
Committee
 > was agreeable to this idea.
 >
 > Thank you for your consideration.
 >
 > Sincerely yours,
 >
 >
 > Laurence L. Leff, Ph.D.
 > Associate Professor of Computer Science