[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Agenda OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Contracts Technical Committee Meeting from Secretary (File id: @@2545)
Agenda OASIS eContracts Technical Committee July 20th 18:00 Eastern Time 18:00:00 Wednesday July 20, 2005 in America/New_York converts to 22:00:00 Wednesday July 20, 2005 in GMT 1-641-297-5400 (St. Marys, IA) PIN CODE 84759 Agenda: We'll use the time to try to finish the initial analysis of each alternative schema and come to consensus on an approach. Mr. Peter Meyer will contribute a more detailed analysis and summary of BNML schema (Elkera's) that Dr. Leff started; and provide a side-by-side comparison of DITA/DOCBOOK/XHTML2/BNML (which will overlap with some work we've already done, but perhaps add some more light and perspective), and also will send a copy of the final version of BNML to the TC and is willing to contribute the IP underlying that schema to OASIS as the basis of standardization, if it is the will of the TC to go with that approach. Further explanatory documentation illuminating BNML will also be made available in the weeks to follow, on the same terms to OASIS. The discussions we had were around making the IP freely available, with no restrictions on use, no royalty or otherwise. Further discussions at the end of the July Sixth teleconference outlined some other issues. They amplify requirements we have. Possibly, the TC may wish to make these explicitly in their requirements documents: 1) At its June Sixth teleconference, the OASIS Legal XML Member Section Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee decided to look into "fully-tagged forms and other court documents for justice system documents" It "intends to return to the ... Court Document 1.1 standard." At some point, our TC may wish to contact them and harmonize narrative markup with the work done by this, and possibly other, Legal XML Technical Committees. Section 2.5 of our host schema evaluation asks if "clause and paragraph level objects" can be used for other legal and business documents? And, do we want to explicitly add to our requirements that law firms can use only one schema for both contracts, litigation documents, and other legal documents? Dr. Leff, in his individual member capacity, will be writing to the Chairperson of the Electronic Court Filing Technical Committee and its Legal XML Steering Committee Representative about this issue. 2) It is desirable to that a specfic document be marked up in only one way. This is known in computer science as the "canonical form" issue. Thus, if several people were asked to use our Host Schema to mark up a particular document (perhaps working from a printout), would they end up using the same XML tags. 3) One of the members with experience with two DocBook toolchains observed that they would sometimes generate Java exceptions or hit infinite loops when preparing PDF documents from XML. This is even after the XML was passed by validation against the DTD. Possibly, toolchains for other markup such as Text Encoding Initiative would have the same problem, particular in view of their complexity. Assume a user submit Contract XML to the toolchain to prepare a "high quality print rendition." Is it a requirement that a reasonable printout come out and that the toolchain software never hang. Obviously, this assumes that the contract XML is validated first against the appropriate Schema or DTD. P. S. Also, we created a document folder on our TC's web site for the Host Schema evaluations. Mr. Chambers had prepared two evaluations. They are are now there and several prepared by Dr. Laurence L. Leff will be added shortly.