Re: Minutes Teleconference of April 27th 2004

[Jason Harrop <jharrop@speedlegal.com>]

please note that contrary to the minutes for the teleconference of the 
27th, i was not present.  cheers, Jason

Dr. Laurence Leff wrote:
>                      Minutes Teleconference of April 27th 2004
>      Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
>                                     (OASIS)
>                            Legal XML Member Section
>                        E-Contracts Technical Committee (TC)
> 
> Present
> 
> Rolly Chambers
> Charles Gilliam
> Jason Harrop
> Laurence L. Leff, Ph.D.
> Zorran Milosovic, Ph.D.
> Eddie O'Brien
> John McClure
> David Marvits
> 
> 18:01 Eastern Time
> 
> The Technical Committee approved the minutes drafts from January
> Seventh, February Fourth, and February 17th of 2004.   It was noted
> that the minutes draft for April 13th was also available on the
> Technical Committee's web site.
> 
> Mr. Chambers kicked off the reopening of the discussion that was
> started in the meeting of April 13th by mentioning some of the comments
> received:
> 
> Mr. Peter Meyer raised the issue of what are the advantages
> of XML over other technologies now in use for particular users.  He also
> raised the issue of answering why standardization would be useful.
> 
> Mr. Jason Harrop raised the issue of whether some requirements
> should be delayed.
> 
> Other members raised other issues:
> 
> * Do we compare XML with other formalisms such as Prolog?  Or do we
>   compare XML with transferring contracts with Microsoft Word?
> 
> * Some other Technical Committees had general statements on the advantages
>   of XML.  Perhaps, these statements could be borrowed for our documents.
> 
> * It is important to prepare a Requirements Document and approve it shortly
>   rather than waiting a few months for certain issues to be ironed out.
>   Perhaps, this means that these other issues would be addressed in
>   a different document.
> 
> * A Scenario is that one potential party to a contract might receive
>   it in our XML standard.  They would print it, sign it with a conventional
>   pen, and mail it back by conventional mail.  (Headers and footers are an
>   issue in this scenario.)
> 
> * Are we thus creating XML that represents "an evidentiary contract" and
>   what is the importance of XML in this.
> 
> * What is necessary to have an "evidentiary" contract and how do Court
>   "Rules of Procedure" relate with it.  One of the lawyer members of the 
>   committee said that conventional XML, even without a printed format 
>   such as would be generated by a style sheet, could serve as a contract.  
>   A court would accepted it if it manifested the agreement of the parties.
> 
> * The Universal Business Language Technical Committee is discussing 
>   standardizing style sheets for the display of their documents.
> 
> * Does our XML standard have to support CSS style sheets?
> 
> * Would our standard allow any content in the output to be generated by
>   "algorithmic means?"
> 
> * Does the XML for the contract have to contain all the information 
>   that is part of the contract.  And, how does this impact the use of
>   XForms to include information.
> 
> * Importance of having "mandatory" and "optional" requirements in a standard
>   And what does that mean.  One interpretation is that for certification, 
>   an implementation would have to provide the "mandatory" features but
>   the implementors would not have to provide the other features. The
>   purveyors of that implementation could still say they met our our 
>   standard.
> 
> * What is the importance of understanding and dealing with semantic issues?
>   Should  we not include in our requirements, "semantic items" and 
>   business terms such as quantities, prices, and units.
> 
> Mr. Chambers concluded that he has enough information and views from
> the committee from our discussions to come to the next draft revision
> of the Requirements Document.  The Scenarios that are now on our web
> page and were discussed will be attachments to the Requirements
> Document.  They will be put in a single HTML file.  However, there will
> be no new headers, reorganizing or editorial changes to the contents.
> 
> The Structural Markup Subcommittee Report was put on the agenda for
> the next meeting to be held in two weeks.  [That would be May 11th.]
> 
> The Technical Committee adjourned at 1910 Eastern time.
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-econtracts/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Jason Harrop
CTO, SPEEDLEGAL
jharrop@speedlegal.com

Melbourne
Mob +61 (0)402 02 66 34
Tel +61 (0)3 9670 0141
Fax +61 (0)3 9670 0142
www.speedlegal.com

SmartPrecedent(R) software
The most intelligent way to create documents