Jim,
Here where? I am en route the Fall Council
Meeting of the State Bar of Texas ADR Section, and will be delivering the
attached report. If I can find the charter document you reference, I will
include it for discussion today and tomorrow, hopefully with feedback to you (by
someone) before I leave Monday to Nepal (back 10/21).
Ann
----- Original Message -----
From: "jkeane" <>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:42
PM
Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] Proposed
Charter for OdrXML Technical Committee (1.0)
> Here is a first cut at the substance of a charter
for an OdrXML Technical
> Committee as part of the
OASIS Legal XML Member Section.
>
> Please review and offer
critiques, enhancement or changes. I'm at the outer
> limits of my
bandwidth. To make this group work we will need active
> participants and
leaders. If there are enough believers in online dispute
> resolution out
there, this is the time to step up to the plate.
>
> If we
can reach consensus on a charter, we will need strong volunteer
> support
from many quarters to achieve its objectives.
>
>
>
>
> James I. Keane
>
>
JKeane.Law.Pro
>
> 20 Esworthy Terrace
>
> North
Potomac MD 20878
>
> 301-948-4062 F: 301-947-9159
>
>
<http://www.jkeane.com/> www.jkeane.com
>
>
>
> <http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=16989703&catalog_name
> =wgstore> Litigation Support Systems, 2d
(WestGroup)
> http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=13515516
> <http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=13515516&catalog_name
> =wgstore> &catalog_name=wgstore
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Debi
Miller-Moore [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002
10:09 AM
> To: 'jkeane'; 'Ben Davis'; 'Rolly Chambers';
> ;
> Cc: 'Legalxml-Comment (E-mail)'; 'LegalXML (Mail)
(E-mail)'; ABA-ODR List
> (E-mail); Daniel Greenwood (E-mail); Jamie Bryce
(E-mail); 'David Sandborg'
> Subject: RE: [legalxml-odr-discuss] odrXML -
Starting Point?
>
>
> Hi everyone,
> I am Debi
Miller-Moore. I added myself to the xml odr list. I head up the
> Online
and eCommerce Initiatives of the American Arbitration Asso.
> nationally
and internationally and I live in Charlotte, NC. I wanted to
>
offer up a name for a possible Singapore contact, who I am sure some of
you
> know. David
> Sandborg is a Professor at University of
Hong Kong, and may also know
> someone in Singapore who is connected with
the efiling process. His contact
> information is attached.
>
> Regards,
>
> Debi Miller-Moore
>
> Debi Miller-Moore
> Vice President
> eCommerce
Services
> American Arbitration Asso.
>
>
(704) 905-1488 Cell
> (704) 347-6658 office
> (704) 347-2804 fax
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: jkeane [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002
6:01 PM
> To: 'Ben Davis'; 'Rolly Chambers';
> ;
> Cc: 'Legalxml-Comment (E-mail)'; 'LegalXML (Mail)
(E-mail)'; ABA-ODR List
> (E-mail); Daniel Greenwood (E-mail); Jamie Bryce
(E-mail)
> Subject: 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
> <http://www.jkeane.com/> www.jkeane.com
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.westgroup.com/store/product.asp?product_id=13515516&catalog_name
> =wgstore>
>
>
>
>
-----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_FORUM000000000
> 000118C
> <http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM00000000
> 0000118C> . Additional and more general information
about ODR is also
> available at
> http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM000000000
> 000000D
> <http://econfidence.jrc.it/default/show.gx?Object.object_id=EC_FORUM00000000
> 0000000D> .
>
> 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
>
>
