MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
legalxml-courtfiling message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [legalxml-courtfiling] JXDDS Person Object
From: "Durham, Shane (LNG-CL)" <>
To: Court Filing List <>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:54:13 -0700
Of the diagram:
The diagram is not precise enough for me to say I have no issue with it.
But, I think, it is very close to a data-model that I would support.
I would like to speak more with the authors... will they be at Boston?
John Messing writes:
>>I would like to see developed a Party object and a non-Party object. <<
Surely, these two objects are two flavors of the SAME thing. I sense that
the only difference in your proposed objects is that you see 'party' as
being related to a case/filing and non-party as not. If that is the only
difference, then, we should be able to define some kind of 'Named-thing',
from which your 'party' or 'non-party' would both inherit their common
characteristics.
I think that's all the diagram is trying to express. along with a suggestion
that the 'thing' be called 'actor'. You can have 'party' and 'non-party'..
but they are both sub-types of 'actor'. eh?
On the semantic issue of 'Actor' vs 'Party' vs. 'Participant'.
We need to have a generic term that represents a 'Named-thing' that has a
'name' and can behave as a person, business, or property. This
'named-thing' needs a title that is independant of its possible
case/filing/document contexts.
As Allen Jenson noted, this is really a technical term/definition issue...
and it should not effect our functional terms.
I think 'actor' is a suitable title for our generic 'Named-thing'.
As I read the diagram, it does not say that 'actor' is the specific XML
tag-name of a litigant or judge or attorney or witness...
The diagram only says that 'whatever you want to call it', if your object
has a 'name' and behaves 'like a Named-thing' then it should conform to the
defined data-format of 'person', 'organization', or 'property', which are
all sub-types of 'actor'.
Honestly, it makes perfect sense to me.. and I think that it is a step in
the right direction.
- Shane
Technical comment concerning given diagram:
i) Correct me if I am wrong: I think 'SuperObject', 'Actor', 'Person',
'Organization', and 'Property' are all intended to be "abstract objects" -
they only define data structure that other objects can inherit (borrow,
mimic, adhere to). Whereas 'citizen', 'official', and 'subject' are
*examples* of 'actor' objects that *could* be invented and implemented in
the various LegalXML API sub-groups.
ii) The inheritance arrows between 'actor' and 'person / organization /
property' seem incorrect (the inheritence arrows point BOTH ways.). Correct
me if I am wrong: I think the designers intend for 'person', 'organization',
and 'property' to inherit from 'actor'. (arrows would be pointed only
towards 'actor')
