Diff:May 2009 & Oct 2009

This release contains some differences to previous versions regarding mainly the handling of judgments. Most differences regard metadata to analyze judgments, and only a few of them affect the document content. 

• A new inline element, docketNumber, has been introduced to handle the specification of the docket number, case number, file number or in general any number that represents the overall procedure of which this is one document. The term docketNumber has been chosen because it is clear, unambiguous, not overly restrictive (as would have been caseNumber) and not misunderstandable for a computer-related term (as would have been fileNumber).

• Speech-related containers such as administrationOfOaths, declarationOfVote, etc. have been added to the list of containers that can be specified anywhere.

• Element lawyer has a few difference in its attributes: the attribute represents has become for, and a new attribute empoweredBy has been added for lawyers that receive the representation not directly from the client but indirectly through a delegation of power via another lawyer.

• Element opinion, wrapping the opinion of the judges in a judgment, has a new attribute type that specifies whether each individual judge consents or dissents from the judgment.

• The element workflow has been clarified. A workflow is not composed of action elements anymore, but of step elements. Each step element defines (references to instances of) a date, an actor (either a TLCPerson or a TLCOrganization), a role (a TLCRole), and an outcome (a TLCConcept).

• A new analysis container has been added for judicial analysis. The element, judicial, contains a number of judicial arguments, each of which connects a structure of the document to external sources or other structures of the document itself. The judicial element contains one result element that specifies the actual result of the judgment (one of deny, dismiss, uphold, revert, replaceOrder, remit, decide, and approve), and as many elements as needed of the judicial argument category, which are: supports,  isAnalogTo, applies, extends, restricts, derogates, contrasts, overrules, dissentsFrom, putsInQuestion, distinguishes. It should be noted that the term putsInQuestion is hardly satisfactory, and different from the proposed questions, which cannot be used in this context because  it is already used as a section of the Speech containers.

Click here to see the differences between the releases.