RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] Attached proposed person object

I agree with the wisdom of leaving the CF 1.1 standard and related Legal XML standards alone for the time being.
I also agree that looking more closely at an object model approach, such as the "person object" proposal, in the context of CF 2.0 is a good idea.
Although I agree in concept that an object model approach is a good way to go forward, the specific proposal by GTRI for the "person object" could be improved.
For one thing, the naming and grouping of the proposed subclasses could be brought more in line with the "classes" of persons commonly encountered in legal proceedings - witnesses (informants, deponents, experts, etc.), victims, attorneys, judicial officials (judges, justices, magistrates, clerks, etc.), and law enforcement officers (detectives, agents, deputies, patrol officers, etc.).
There are no doubt some others worth including.
I am assuming those who will frequently be creating or editing court filings and court documents (e.g. legal secretaries, attorneys, judges, etc.) will find such elements easy and intuitive to use.
I think it also will be easier for processing applications to locate and extract information marked up with more descriptive tags instead of having to process the text within a <role> element to determine whether the information concerns an attorney, a victim, a witness, etc.
None of this is to say that the "actor" and "role" elements have zero use -- but just that the person "object model" approach is a way to improve upon them.
Rolly Chambers