[legalxml-comment] RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point?

Ben, thanks 
for query and interest in solving this data model 
issue globally. 

There is an 
engaging discussion on the CourtFiling list right now on a discrepancy between 
the use of Actor and Person and the different roles they play in any legal 
proceeding. It turns out Criminal Justice Data Dictionary is not using the same 
terms and approaches it a bit differently.   

 

Just within 
LegalXML and OASIS space, is there a comparable set of relationships in 
ebXML work?  The central point of my thesis is that we should be able 
to move seamlessly from a legal transaction to dispute resolution, whether 
by ADR, Civil or Criminal process.

 

Ben, are you in touch with anyone in Singapore who can 
join the dialogue? They certainly have been very active in electronic courts and 
ADR.

 

Jim

 

PS. 
 I added the ABA ODR list  to this thread. in. What's the 
nature of the ICArbitration yahoo group? 

James I. Keane JKeane.Law.Pro

-----Original 
Message-----
From: Ben Davis 
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 4:40 
PM
To: 'jkeane'; 'Rolly Chambers'; 
; 
''
Cc: Legalxml-Comment (E-mail); 
LegalXML (Mail) (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - 
Starting Point?
This is a very interesting note suggesting cross-overs at 
this time.  I wonder if the technical efforts in Singapore Courts would be 
relevant to this.  I also wonder if anyone is aware of a place where there 
is a list of the various types of technical efforts like these that are or may 
be going on in the four corners of the world.  I am writing an article 
tentatively titled "Connecting Worldwide: The Seamless Dispute Resolution Web" 
and this type of development in various corners of the world is part of what I 
am looking at and thinking about in addition to legal 
developments.

Best 
regards,

Ben 
Davis

Benjamin Davis

Associate Professor

Texas 
Wesleyan University School of Law

1515 
Commerce Street

Fort 
Worth, Texas 76102

Tel.: 
1 817 212 3915

Fax: 1 
817 212 3965

E-mail:

  
-----Original Message-----
From: jkeane 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:32 
  AM
To: 'Rolly Chambers'; 
  
Cc: Legalxml-Comment 
  (E-mail); LegalXML (Mail) (E-mail)
Subject: RE: 
  [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point?

  
Rolly 
  Chambers (who is now co-chairing the eFiling committee of the ABA Science 
  & Technology Section with fellow LegalXML stalwart, John 
  Messing) asked if anyone was familiar enough the  OdrXML draft 
  standard 1.0 to determine if that work was a good starting place for this 
  proposed OdrXML Technical Committee. 

  
 

  
I'm cross 
  posting this response to the general list as we all need to become aware of 
  this important effort in Europe. We also need to look at the methodology 
  and work product of some XML devotees who have been working in parallel with 
  us but without any apparent cross-overs.  

  
 

  
After studying their data model and scheme, let 
  me offer some observations from my notes - which are a work in 
  progress.   I'm am in no way making judgments about the extensive 
  and thoughtful work already done by the Joint Research Centre Online 
  Dispute Resolution Workgroup "in Association with the European 
  Commission." Indeed, it's very impressive and state of the art.  It is 
  very different, however, from the path that Legal XML and particularly the 
  CourtFiling TC with its equally impressive work on 
  its DTD's and policies to date as well as its 
  plans to migrate to a schema in release 2.0. 

  
 

  
Our Integrated Justice Technical Committee has 
  taken a more parallel tack to OdrXML, in that the folks at SEARCH and 
  at Georgia Tech Research Institute are developing a data model, data 
  dictionary and a schema in parallel with work on specific document types such 
  as arrest reports, warrants, charging documents and sentence/disposition 
  documents through the life cycle of a criminal 
  matter.  

  
 

  
Please take 
  my preliminary comments then as comparative observations and questions on 
  how we can harmonize this very important work out of Europe with the 
  efforts of Legal XML / OASIS and LEXML for global 
  standards. 

  
 

  
JK Notes on 
  OdrXML V.1.0 --  2002.08.27

  
 

  
1. OdrXML 1.0 uses a Schema rather than a Document Type 
  Definition.  They have included very helpful relationship diagrams 
  in their documentation, although the link to the demonstration did not work 
  when I checked it last. This whole approach is a step ahead of some 
  of the work in progress by the Court Filing TC which is 
  planning to move to a schema. It parallels the Integrated Justice 
  TC's current work on a Data Model. 

  

2. We all need to look carefully at the 
  OdrXML data model to consider using this approach as our development framework.  Several IT folks in the various Legal XML 
  workgroups have strongly advocated this approach rather than just building 
  stand-alone DTD's and Schema for individual documents and waiting for a 
  horizontal workgroup to reconcile differences.  

  

3. The OdrXML data model is case-centric. It describes a case rather than a 
  document (a related attribute of a 
  document in the model) -- or a court-filing envelope.  
  This is a different 
  approach than we have used, but we 
  need some reactions from  from the data modeling experts at Georgia Tech 
  Research Institute and others to assess the OdrXML 
  model and how we can merge, 
  converge, build on their work or unravel some of the 
  choices each of us have made 
  in taking divergent paths towards the similar 
  goals.

  

4. The ODR 
  XML data model and schema includes an interesting transmission element. A document can include: "xsd:element 
  name='transmissionMedia" type="TransmissionMediaEnum" with a list of MIME 
  types to distinguish between image formats, document formats, clear text 
  etc".

  
  

  
The Legal XML Court Filing Group has had 
  a robust debate on keeping a clear separation between the transmission 
  envelope and the underlying document.  The ODR XML model needs clarification to determine if 
  considers making transmission an underlying component 
  in a Case or document [or a separate envelope 
  which could transmit a bundle of documents and exhibits.]  The semantics on this point get even 
  more interesting with their definition of a "case" as "the overall envelope for all information 
  in a dispute."  Given the meaning of the "envelope" concept in Court 
  Filing, we need to find a mutually agreeable alternative term such as a 
  "container." More importantly we need to compare and reconcile our data models. 
  

  

5. The 
  primary players or actors in 
  the OdrXML data model are Parties 
  (Claimant, Respondent), Moderator (Case Officer, Mediator, Arbitrator) and 
  Specialist (Witness, Translator, Expert).  Based on some recent work in developing a virtual 
  dispute resolution platform with 
  VirtualCourthouse, we used a more 
  encompassing term "Neutral, 
  " which was strongly 
  suggested by a number of US ADR 
  providers.

  
 

  
Our 
  development team also made further distinctions between types 
  of Cases. We added "Neutral Case Evaluation" and "Settlement Conference," for 
  example.  The concept of a 
  facilitated settlement conference 
  with the neutral being more proactive than a mediator becomes quite 
  pointed when we realized that a judges in Chambers acts as neutral 
  too.  In addition, at least 
  in the US, many courts have mandatory ADR with a judge or court clerk who 
  refers cases, monitors them 
  and may receive status reports.  Any overall model may need more 
  players, actors or "Personas" the terms used in the OdrXML 
  model. 

  
The OdrXML 
  model is very understandably focused on European Community type eCommece 
  disputes. As we delve deeper into this work,  we need to generalize the 
  data model to be more inclusive of other types of disputes such as domestic 
  relations, AAA, securities arbitration, etc.

  
 

  
 Looking at this whole data model afresh, makes me 
  want to visit an even broader data model that follows commercial 
  transactions through their full life cycle from bid, offer, contract, 
  performance, dispute, litigation.  The Integrated Justice folks have 
  addressed more document types in the life cycle of an incident, an arrest, a 
  warrant, a charging document and sentence disposition.  The missing 
  element that the OdrXML data model raises in a "case."  That gets us 
  into law firm, agency and court Case Management Systems.

  
 

  
The great 
  American Naturalist John Muir has observed:"Whenever I pick up a small piece 
  of nature, I find it is connected to the rest of the universe."  The work 
  on OdrXML reflects a part of the life cycle of legal matters. In part 
  response to Rolly's question then, this is a good place to begin, particularly 
  if we connect it "to the rest of the universe" and parallel work by other 
  LegalXML TC's. 

  
 

  
My 
  compliments to the Joint Research Center for their clarifying work. 
  

  
 

  
And to all, 
  please join the OdrXML TC or or other TC's so we can connect with the rest of 
  the global XML community.

  
 

  
Jim 
  Keane

  
ViceChair

  
LegalXML/Oasis Steering Committee  

  
 

  
 JKeane.Law.Pro

  
<Litigation 
  Systems>

  
North Potomac Maryland USA

  
301-948-4062 F: 
  301-947-9159

  
       
  www.jkeane.com  

  

  

  

  

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Rolly Chambers 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 
  10:47 AM
To: 
  
Subject: 
  [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML - Starting Point?

  
From Karl Best's initial message creating this discussion list, 
  I realize the scope is "to explore the formation of an Online Dispute 
  Resolution Technical Committee" - something I'm in favor of and am willing to 
  join in as a TC member.

  
 

  
I also understand from Karl's message that the idea is for an 
  ODR TC (if formed) to "build from relevant work done previously by the 
  Joint Research Centre Online Dispute Resolution Workgroup in association with 
  the European Commission." An OdrXML draft standard ( 
  Version 0.1 )  is available at http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM000000000000118C. 
  Additional and more general information about ODR is also available at 
   http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM000000000000000D.

  
 

  
Is anyone familiar enough with the OdrXML draft standard 0.1 to have a 
  view whether it would be an appropriate starting point for an ODR TC to 
  build from? I've looked at the OdrXML 0.1 draft standard, but haven't studied 
  it. I certainly don't have any opinion whether it would be a good 
  starting point for an ODR TC. I'm interested to hear what views 
  others may have.

  
 

  
Rolly Chambers