Re: Schemas for Opinions of Federal Courts

Personally, I think developing some shared core schema for this domain
would make a lot of sense. I think the problem is that the domain is
complicated and coming up with something general purpose that applies
across countries and their respective legal systems is difficult. But we
should give it a go. If it proves just too difficult to model across legal
systems, we can come up with schema specific to a single legal system. For
example, you might have USLegalDecision instead of LegalDecision.

On Saturday, August 15, 2015, Sam Deskin <sam@openjurist.org> wrote:

> I think http://OpenJurist.org  is the epitome of a long tail search
> website.
>
>
>
> I wonder what the group thinks they would do for something that is as
> specialized as legal opinions; what would you do if this was your website,
> would you create an extension for legal opinions? OR would you use an
> existing schema? Which one? Thad already suggested Assess and React
> Action.
>
>
>
> If so, and you wanted it to be widely used, what do you think of these
> Properties?
>
>
>
> Court
>
> Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Defendant-Appellee
>
> Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>
> Citation(s)
>
> Docket Number
>
> Date Argued
>
> Date Decided
>
> Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Attorneys for Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
>
> Attorneys for Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>
> Judge/Justice Hearing Matter
>
> Judge/Justice Delivering Opinion
>
> Holding
>
> Area of Law
>
> Country of Jurisdiction
>
> Region of Jurisdiction
>
> Company(ies) Mentioned
>
> Individual(s) Mentioned
>
> Cases Cited
>
> Links to Cases Cited
>
> Cases Citing
>
> Links to Cases Citing
>
> courtAppealedFrom
>
> Citation of Prior Opinion
>
> Link to Prior Opinion
>
>
>
> I know that some might be less ambitious at first, but I am trying to be
> complete so that we don’t waste development resources on doing half of the
> work now and then have to do the other half again later.
>
>
>
> Is there a way to make things better/more generic so that other countries
> legal opinions could fit in this extension better as well? Is there
> anything I have missed?
>
>
>
> Sam Deskin
>
> OpenJurist.org
>
>
>
> *From:* Thad Guidry [mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thadguidry@gmail.com');>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:57 AM
> *To:* Sam Deskin
> *Cc:* schema.org Mailing List
> *Subject:* Re: Schemas for Opinions of Federal Courts
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Sam Deskin <sam@openjurist.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sam@openjurist.org');>> wrote:
>
> Hi Thad,
>
> I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.  I see why you might
> suggest Assess and React Action, but I think that I would be shoehorning
> judicial opinions into them.
>
> ​Not at all, Actions are supposed to be fairly generic, and all
> stakeholders and current clients treat them this way.  "about" just becomes
> more important to give context to them..so make sure not to skip using that
> property...as well as "sameAs".
>
> ​
>
> Creating a new extension might be the best option, but I am not sure that
> it would be of much benefit to search engines or the public.  I am
> ambivalent about creating a new extension if search engines will not have
> any interest in it because there is ONE or very few websites using it.
>
>
>
> ​Someone has to start the long tail domain discussions...and it is this
> very reason that the stakeholders say "if you build it...we will gather".
> In fact, that mantra is automatic as long as your robots.txt allows anyone
> to gather your structured data.  Don't be a pessimist, is my advice and the
> stakeholders advice when we are talking about the long tail domains such as
> Law, Sub-sciences, Metalworking, Craftmaking, Water caves, or Amur leopards
> (only 20 around in the world).
>
> ​
>
>
>
>  Is there a way to determine whether the search engines’ “somewhat
> interested” attitude toward a Law extension would translate into use in
> search results?
>
>
>
> ​See above answer: YES
>
> ​
>
>
>
>  These are the Properties that I can envision:
>
> Court
>
> Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Defendant-Appellee
> Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>
> Citation(s)
>
> Docket Number
>
> Date Argued
>
> Date Decided
>
> Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Attorneys for Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant
>
> Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee
>
> Attorneys for Third Part Defendant-Appellee
>
> Judge/Justice Hearing Matter
> Judge/Justice Delivering Opinion
>
> Holding
>
> Area of Law
>
> Country of Jurisdiction
>
> Region of Jurisdiction
>
> Company(ies) Mentioned
>
> Individual(s) Mentioned
>
> Cases Cited
>
> Cases Citing
>
>
>
> How do these sound to you?
>
>
>
>
>
> ​Those sound fine...it is extensive however, and in places it might be too
> USA-centric...but that is ok for now, because this is your domain.  What we
> will probably do is 1st round on an extension, is pick the most important
> properties (
>
> search filters
>
> ​)​
>
>  useful to folks​ globally.  It can always be further extended later or
> modified later.
>
>
>
> Thad
>
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
>
> ​
>