[Specs-cx] General Concept of Contract Exchange and Contract Schema

[Diana Almeida]

Hello Nat and all the others,

My comments (and some questions) inline.


Nat Sakimura escreveu:
>
> The main aim of Contract Exchange is to define a way to exchange the 
> "(possibly) Legally Binding Contract" between parties.

You don't talk about a third party. Generally speaking when two parties 
are doing a transation there has to be a third party on which they both 
trust. Are we going to talk about this?
 
>
> Thus, defining what should be in that Contract Document is one of the 
> main task of this WG.
>
> The other task is to define a protocol that enables parties to achieve 
> the creation and exchange of such contract documents.
>
> From my experiecne, a contract generally has the following in it.
>
> Contract ID (uri)
> Party A (uri)
> Party B (uri)
> Signatory of Party A (text)
> Signatory of Party B (text)
> Contact Address of Party A (text or uri?)
> Contact Address of Party B (text or uri?)
> Main Content of this Contract
> - What is to be provided (text)
> - What is received in return (text)
> Term and Termination
> - Term / Validity Period of the Contract (Datetime-Datetime)
> - Termination (text)
> - Survival of Certain Terms (text)
> Damages
> - Explanation (text)
> - max amount from A to B (number?)
> - max amount from B to A (number?)
> Non Disclosure
> - How to specify (text)
> - How Long (datetime-datetime)
> Relationship to other Contracts (text)
> Signature of the Signatory of Party A (text)
> Date of the Signature A (datetime)
> Signature of the Signatory of Party B (text)
> Date of the Signature B (datetime)
>
> Is this generally good or are there anything that are necessary in 
> addition to these?


I believe this is generally good. I can't remember anything else that 
should be included in the contract.

>
> Should we specify the schema for these or should we keep it to bare 
> minimal and let everything else be represented as text?
> Should we try to incorporate LegalXML etc.
>
> These are the kind of questions that I have in mind for the "Contract 
> as a document" portion.
>
> Fortunately, we have Scott Blackmer in this WG who is a knowledgeable 
> lawyer, so Scott could cast some insight on this issue.
>
> Then, there will be the protocol for exchanging this along with some 
> technical requirement such as inclusion of the public key of the parties.
> I will touch on these on a separate post.

Sorry, just a quick question regarding the validation of the signatures. 
Can't we think about public key as an OpenID attribute? Wouldn't this 
simplify the process of validating the signature?



My best,
Diana

>
> Please discuss.
>
> -- 
> Nat Sakimura (=nat)
> http://www.sakimura.org/en/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Specs-cx mailing list
> Specs-cx at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs-cx
>