No subject

<br>
Contract ID (uri)<br>
Party A (uri)<br>
Party B (uri)<br>
Signatory of Party A (text)<br>
Signatory of Party B (text)<br>
Contact Address of Party A (text or uri?)<br>
Contact Address of Party B (text or uri?)<br>
Main Content of this Contract<br>
- What is to be provided (text)<br>
- What is received in return (text)<br>
Term and Termination<br>
- Term / Validity Period of the Contract (Datetime-Datetime)<br>
- Termination (text)<br>
- Survival of Certain Terms (text)<br>
Damages<br>
- Explanation (text)<br>
- max amount from A to B (number?)<br>
- max amount from B to A (number?)<br>
Non Disclosure<br>
- How to specify (text)<br>
- How Long (datetime-datetime)<br>
Relationship to other Contracts (text)<br>
Signature of the Signatory of Party A (text)<br>
Date of the Signature A (datetime)<br>
Signature of the Signatory of Party B (text)<br>
Date of the Signature B (datetime)<br>
<br>
Is this generally good or are there anything that are necessary in addition=
 to these?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br></div></div>
I believe this is generally good. I can&#39;t remember anything else that s=
hould be included in the contract.<div class=3D"im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Should we specify the schema for these or should we keep it to bare minimal=
 and let everything else be represented as text?<br>
Should we try to incorporate LegalXML etc.<br>
<br>
These are the kind of questions that I have in mind for the &quot;Contract =
as a document&quot; portion.<br>
<br>
Fortunately, we have Scott Blackmer in this WG who is a knowledgeable lawye=
r, so Scott could cast some insight on this issue.<br>
<br>
Then, there will be the protocol for exchanging this along with some techni=
cal requirement such as inclusion of the public key of the parties.<br>
I will touch on these on a separate post.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Sorry, just a quick question regarding the validation of the signatures. Ca=
n&#39;t we think about public key as an OpenID attribute? Wouldn&#39;t this=
 simplify the process of validating the signature?</blockquote><div><br>
We need to separate out two kind of signatures: Signatures for the message =
integrity check (i.e, transient) and signature for the document (i.e., to s=
tore.) Here, we are taking about the later. Signature can be sent as an Ope=
nID attribute, but we have to also specify how it should be stored. <br>
<br>=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1p=
x solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">=
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
My best,<br>
Diana<br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class=3D"im"=
>
<br>
Please discuss.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Nat Sakimura (=3Dnat)<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.sakimura.org/en/" target=3D"_blank">http://www.sakimu=
ra.org/en/</a><br></div>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br=
>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Specs-cx mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Specs-cx at openid.net" target=3D"_blank">Specs-cx at openid.ne=
t</a><div class=3D"im"><br>
<a href=3D"http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-cx" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttp://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-cx</a><br>
 =A0<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Specs-cx mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Specs-cx at openid.net" target=3D"_blank">Specs-cx at openid.ne=
t</a><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<a href=3D"http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-cx" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttp://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-cx</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Nat Sakimur=
a (=3Dnat)<br><a href=3D"http://www.sakimura.org/en/">http://www.sakimura.o=
rg/en/</a><br>

--0016362837a8c98b2a046e9f78fd--