legalxml-sc — archive

RE: [legalxml-sc] Legal XHTML

From: John Greacen
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 19:04:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















legalxml-sc message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Legal XHTML




From: "John M. Greacen" <[email protected]>
To: "'Winters, Roger'" <[email protected]>,<[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 13:02:37 -0600






Title: RE: [legalxml-sc] Legal XHTML








You may create a KAVI vote, or you can
solicit opinions in response to your email on the list.  I will vote “no” on this
motion.  I cannot imagine anything
less productive than getting into a pissing match with either Todd Vincent or
John McClure, let alone both of them – two of the most stubborn and
unpleasant people on the face of the earth.  I believe that both xmlLegal and
LegalXHTML are legally distinguishable from LegalXML.  I do not feel threatened in the least by
either of them.  My guess is that we
will find out from Dave Marvit that John McClure ended up on the loosing end of
an important TC vote in eContracts and picked up his marbles and walked away –
a recurring pattern for him.  He is
correct that eContracts has been in existence for years and has produced no
specification.  We have to live with
that and keep working toward the prize. 
Any energy diverted from producing specifications is, in my mind, wasted
energy.













From: Winters, Roger
[mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:56
AM

To: [email protected];
''

Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] Legal
XHTML





I support
action by our Steering Committee on behalf of the Member Section to trademark
(or whatever is required) and protect our interest in "LegalXML"
without being concerned simultaneously with the variations. While John Messing
may be correct, that both should be taken on together (if and when there's any
action about it), the step that needs to be taken first is to secure the Member
Section's use of the "brand." This is not an area of expertise for
me. As Member Section Secretary, I'll be glad to complete and submit forms, if
someone will guide me. 

May I
turn this into a motion? 

I move
that the Steering Committee take appropriate steps to copyright and/or
trademark the term "LegalXML" consistent with any governing OASIS
policies and practices. 

Mr.
Chairperson (Greacen): Should I make this a KAVI vote for the Steering
Committee? 

Roger
Winters

King County

Department of Judicial
Administration

Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
Coordinator

and 

Programs and Projects Manager

516 Third Avenue, E-609 MS:
KCC-JA-0609

Seattle, Washington 98104

V: (206) 296-7838 F: (206) 296-0906

[email protected]

  

-----Original
Message-----

From: John Messing [mailto:[email protected]] 

Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 9:47 AM

To:
[email protected]

Cc: [email protected]

Subject: [legalxml-sc] Legal XHTML


I don't
see how we can do anything about Legal XHTML without also

resolving XMLLegal. Karl was going
to work on that with Jamie  before

he left, but apparently did not get
to it. The two tradename instances

go together as a pair, IMHO.




---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list,
you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  You may
a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS

at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
















References:

RE: [legalxml-sc] Legal XHTML
From: "Winters, Roger" <[email protected]>






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]